CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, today is the 20th of

October 1999. We are still proceeding with the evidence of Mr Prinsloo, the applicant, being represented by Adv Prinsloo.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just place on record, I am Louisa van der Walt, I appear for the applicant, Mr D J Kruger. I was not present yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: It has been duly noted, Ms van der Walt. We adjourned yesterday whilst Adv Botha was still busy cross-examining Mr Prinsloo.

Mr Prinsloo, you are reminded again that you are still under your former oath.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Botha, you may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: (cont)

Mr Prinsloo, I would just like to put it to you that insofar as your version is contrary to the application of Mr Momberg, I would like to put to you that his evidence would be that your version is the wrong one.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I stand by my evidence and my recollection of the events.

MR BOTHA: And then to conclude, specifically Mr Momberg will testify that the person who drank coke along the road did not have a mark on his forehead.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I can just stand by the injury that I saw in Mbizana.

MR BOTHA: I thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no more questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Botha. Mr van Heerden, for the victims?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Prinsloo, you were comprehensively cross-examined about a number of aspects yesterday. I would just like to deal with a few aspects with you this morning. Will you just tell us what the complaints were about the Obet Masina group? The charges on which they were accused.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I beg your pardon, just a moment. I would just like to see if I can find the document.

Chairperson, the initial investigations which were initiated was an attempted murder with regard to a landmine which was placed under a police vehicle and not enough evidence could be obtained in order to prosecute them, and then it was in Silverton, where there was a landmine explosion, Pretoria Road, where several people were injured and damage was caused to property, and there was the matter of the murder of Mr David Lukhele and his sister, Elizabeth Dludlu, as well as the attempted murder of Mrs Lukhele, where they were attacked with AK47 rifles. Then there was the murder of Const Seuntjie Vuma of Mamelodi, where AK47s were used to kill him.

ADV PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, if I might be of assistance. According to the judgment, in the summary of the Appeal Court, of 1990, volume 4, page 709 and specifically page 712, where Mr Justice Freedman delivered the judgment and under (e) -

And then there are further other charges, which the applicant has already referred to.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I confirm that and there were several charges of the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition and explosives.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And there were also confessions made by the accused.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do I understand you correctly that they implicated this person Mandla, in their confessions?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot definitely say whether it was during their questioning of whether it was in their confessions, I would have to go through those documents.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And there was also direct testimony against this person Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The persons who were arrested, was this in about September 1986, 13th of September 1986?

MR PRINSLOO: It is quite possible, Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And the trial, or may I ask you as follows, when did the trial start?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would imagine it was during 1987 somewhere. I cannot say exactly now, I would have to go back and do some research. I was involved in many trials and investigations during that time.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If I would tell you that it was possibly the 2nd of February 1989.

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that probable?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it's possible.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was the 2nd of February 1989.

ADV PRINSLOO: Maybe I can assist Mr van Heerden and the Committee. According to the judgment -

So that could be correct, ja.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, I am indebted.

Let us leave that aspect there. I would like to return to the arrest of Mandla. I assume he was an important person for your to find.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: May I also assume that there was an intensive search for Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Because he was part of this group that had already been arrested.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. Amongst others, I was looking for him for the murder of Brig Malope of Bophuthatswana Police in Mabopane during the group's actions in the Pretoria/Bophuthatswana area.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Were there people permanently deployed for this task, in the tracing of Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it's difficult to say whether - if one searches for a person, then all the units' informers are tasked, so there are several handlers. So it is possible that quite a number of members who had informers were focused on it and would intensively search for him, as well as operationally follow up information to find if we could not trace him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How was Mandla found then?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I've already testified, by means of information from an informer of mine I found him in Eersterus, Pretoria.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And the physical arrest, were you personally present?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was personally present.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And who was with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I've already mentioned in my evidence the members who I think were present and I conceded that I may have been mistaken about one or two members' names.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, we really have to try and finish your evidence, just respond to the question. Who was present with you during the arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall it was Capt Crafford, Lt Roodt, myself and I think Mathebula and Matjeni and possibly More was also present.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he arrested in a house?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in a house.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And were there other people in the house?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he alone?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was alone.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you report the arrest to Brig Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that was normal procedure.

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was must have been chuffed that the arrest had taken place.

MR PRINSLOO: I assume so, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And from there he was taken to the Compol building.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he walk into the building with you?

MR PRINSLOO: The evening after his arrest, yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long after his arrest did you arrive at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would say a maximum of half and hour, because we went directly from Eersterus to Compol.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he then indicate his willingness to cooperate before you arrived at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, he said that he would cooperate, he would give us his full cooperation.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he tell you what he was involved with?

MR PRINSLOO: Only after I questioned him and confronted him with certain information and facts to my availability, then he made some confessions to me.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I would assume it was in the form of a confession to you as an officer.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And such a confession could be used in Court against him.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, if I followed the correct procedure by taking him to a magistrate.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But you were also an officer at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, I was involved with the investigation and judgments which were brought out with regard to confessions to the investigative official and the person who arrests you, did not carry much weight in a Court.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You would certainly - could you not possibly have asked another officer?

MR PRINSLOO: I could have, Chairperson, but after my conversation with him and my questioning of him, I had already come to a decision that he was a possible askari, that I could possibly turn his head.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So at this stage you had enough for a successful prosecution against Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believed so, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You could have added him as a fifth accused to this matter.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you tell Brig Cronje that this man was cooperating with you?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall whether I informed him about it or not, because I was busy right through the night while I was questioning this man. So I cannot say exactly. I know that I told him that the man had been arrested. It is possible that I informed him. I believe that I would have informed him that this man was giving his cooperation.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How often did you see Brig Cronje in your daily work circumstances?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, almost on a daily basis if I was not out of office or he was not out of office because he was at the offices. We shared offices in the same building.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The trunk that was used to transport Mandla out of the building, can you describe to us how large was this trunk.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was a reinforced tin trunk and I would say it was approximately two feet by five and a half feet/six feet, somewhere around there.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the trunk used in the offices for?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was used in Court cases where much documentation and pieces of evidence had to be transported to Court and to keep it safe.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And you say Mandla gave his permission to climb into this trunk?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson. I told him that he had to leave the building under cover and proposed to him that the trunk was the only method available, and if he would climb in. He said yes, he climbed in, we closed the trunk and we carried it out.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he fit comfortably into this trunk?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was quite a struggle.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you help him to get in?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I didn't help him, but the lid could not close properly. It closed enough so that one could not see what was inside, but not enough so that one could lock it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Who carried the trunk out?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I don't know whether I participated myself, but some of the members of my unit, and I cannot recall who it was, carried the trunk out to the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden.

Did you explain to Mandla why you had to leave the building under cover?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, it was about his willingness for cooperation when I told him we have to leave from Compol because they may find out that he is there, the ANC might find out that he was there in the Compol building and that we had to go to a safer place where we could speak at leisure.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Heerden, you may proceed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chair.

Did he not find it strange that he had to leave the building?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not as far as I know. He accorded with it. As I say he climbed into the trunk and we wanted to find the easiest manner, and as I say, the lid could not close properly. It was only from my office out of the building into the vehicle.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And how far was that approximately?

MR PRINSLOO: The offices were on the first floor, we took the lift down. I would say, maximum 30/40 metres in totality.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was the trunk then placed into the vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct. As far as I can recall it was a kombi vehicle with a sliding door, it was placed directly into the kombi.

MR VAN HEERDEN: He was then transported in the trunk?

MR PRINSLOO: No, after the vehicle pulled away he climbed out of the trunk.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was this still in the parking area of the building?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, I think I'm incorrect when I spoke of the parking area of the building, it was right in front of the building. It was at night, it was right in front of the building.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You have been asked about several aspects already. I would just like to pause at one aspect for a while, this was the stage when Mandla decided not to cooperate anymore. You say this was about after five or six days.

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall exactly but I would assume five to six days.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the change that you observed?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I've already said, when I arrived there that day I spoke to him and I greeted him and then I saw that his attitude was negative towards me and I spoke to him in general and then I realised that he was no longer spontaneous as in the days beforehand, since his arrest. Then I decided that I will continue with the questioning and then I questioned him about Kibuza and that is when he told me that he is no longer interested in cooperating and he will not disclose anything further. I tried to surmise what the reason was, but he did not tell me what his change of heart was. The last time I saw him our relationship was still going strong and he was still spontaneous.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What information did you have about Kibuza at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot recall everything right now. All that I can recall is in regard to his involvement in the infiltration of MK units into the RSA and then communication with them and information, I would say information which was obtained by the unit which could be used later, that was channelled by him further onwards in the hierarchy of MK.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then he no longer wanted to cooperate with you?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you try to convince him to give further cooperation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, I did. I held a long talk with him and I tried to determine why he had a change of heart and a change in attitude towards me, but he did not really want to communicate with me, he only said that he will not say anything any further.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you explain the implications of this to him?

MR PRINSLOO: I believed that he was aware of the implications because there was this sword hanging over his head, the possible charges against him. My task at that stage was to see if I could not convince him to give his cooperation again.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Isn't it true, Mr Prinsloo, that he had up to that stage cooperated only with regard to information that you had extracted from the Masina group, with regard to his involvement in the activities of that group?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, that and the other information which he disclosed, which I initially heard via the informer and which he confirmed by means of his reconnaissance which he had done of police officers in Mamelodi as well as possible informers and I was in the process of determining whether he would not disclose this to me, so that I can take this out of circulation because he said he did not send the information to Kibuza yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So apart from that there was no other cooperation that you attained from Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, he went amongst others, the questioning was about whom he knew, his training, names of persons who trained with him. This he gave willingly because MK members are trained in various camps, which assists us because if he can mention names and say in which camps these persons were, to determine who these persons are and to which machinery they are attached. And some of the persons who had left the country from the area, could be identified. And in that sense he was also cooperative.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he cooperative with regard to the names of the policemen he had targeted, to avenge for the arrest of the Masina group?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at that stage not, he did not want to tell me, he said he had it in writing, it was in a safe place. And at that stage he did not want to disclose to me where it was.

CHAIRPERSON: When was he questioned with regard to that information? Was that questioning done whilst he was still at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, he only confirmed. At Compol I confronted him and told him that I am aware that he had done reconnaissance and that he had drawn up possible sketches about where these persons stayed and who they were and that we will talk about that later as well. This was based on information which I received from the informer. He then confessed there and I left it there at Compol. At that stage it became light and people were starting to come to work. It was only at the farm when I continued with this line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say he confirmed that information, what information did he give you with regard to that information?

MR PRINSLOO: He only told me that he had undertaken reconnaissance and that he had left the information in a safe place.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not question him further with regard to the identity of the people that he had reconnoitred?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage at Compol. At the farm, yes, and that is when he told me he was not prepared, up to the point that I interviewed him about it for the last time, to tell me exactly where the information was being stored or with whom it was being stored.

CHAIRPERSON: But whilst at Compol he gave you an impression that he was willing to give you the information and the necessary sketch plans?

MR PRINSLOO: He confirmed to me that which I had put to him and I told him that I was aware that he had undertaken reconnaissance and he confirmed this. I left it at that when we were at Compol, with the further eye on further interrogation about this on the farm, which is what I did.

CHAIRPERSON: How long would you say your first interrogation session at Compol lasted with Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, since our arrival there, probably the whole night until it became light. It was a number of hours, easily six hours or more that I spent interrogating him.

CHAIRPERSON: Six to more hours, could it be more than 10 hours?

MR PRINSLOO: More than six hours, six to eight hours I would say, maximum.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you proceed with your interrogation the next morning?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, but not full-time, there were just singular aspects that I touched upon lightly with him. He was tired at that stage, so I left him to sleep and rest.

CHAIRPERSON: And would you say that he was giving this information quite freely?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that was my impression.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were able to gather speed without having to have difficulties in having to extract information from him.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You were able to gather speed, because you did not need to use any method to extract information from him.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, it wasn't necessary for me to apply violence in order to obtain the information.

CHAIRPERSON: No persuasion?

MR PRINSLOO: As I've already testified, I told him and confronted him with the facts which were already at my disposal and in conjunction with what he told me on the way from Eersterus to the Compol office, he told me yes, that he admitted that he was with the group.

A case that I can recall specifically regarding Malope's murder, I interrogated him about that at Compol, regarding the shooting, how many shots they had fired because many AK47 shells were picked up there according to the Bophuthatswana Police. Not only one or two AK47 shells were picked up there. At that stage I was still under the impression that the entire group had possibly been involved, seen in the light of the number of shells which were picked up on the murder scene. And he assisted me with that and told me that only two persons had actually been involved and that he was one who had fired and that he had emptied an entire magazine.

CHAIRPERSON: So the information was volunteered by him without wasting time, there was no need for you to persuade him to volunteer this information. You had his absolute cooperation.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You must have been somewhat disappointed when he decided not to cooperate with you any further.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, that is why I've stated that he offered his cooperation up to a certain point. And what it was that happened, I still don't know. Something must have happened in my absence, but I don't know what it was. When I saw him again he had undergone a complete change in attitude towards me and he said that he would not give any further cooperation, that he would not disclose or expose anything further.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, just answer the question. You were disappointed or not?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was disappointed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you make any enquiries with your colleagues to determine whether or not they had noticed anything which could have led to this change in attitude?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I believe I must have done so. I cannot recall specifically with whom, but I did so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Therefore you made enquiries?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And what feedback did they give you?

MR PRINSLOO: That nothing had happened to him, that they couldn't give any reasons for this change in his attitude.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The information regarding Kibuza, was this important information to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, indeed. And also the fact that he had gathered information which would have gone to Kibuza where it would have been dealt with further.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I think you testified yesterday that during other sessions of interrogation you had indeed applied violence.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you not do so with this particular session while you seeking important information from somebody who was in your custody?

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to Mbizana himself?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: My primary objective up to that stage, when he said that he would not cooperate any further, was still for him to offer his cooperation ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, the question is when he refused, why didn't you use violence? When he refused to offer any further cooperation. Just listen to the question and answer it.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I've already stated that I held lengthy discussions with him, during which I attempted to persuade him to offer his cooperation again.

M' MALAN: The question Mr Prinsloo, is why didn't you use violence? Why didn't you apply violence at that stage to attempt to obtain further information from him?

MR PRINSLOO: That would have defeated my aims and my purpose was to turn him.

MR MALAN: But you had already decided that he could not be turned.

MR PRINSLOO: I stated that he had changed his attitude and that he had stated that he wouldn't cooperate any further.

MR MALAN: And that is when you decided to eliminate him. The question is, why did you take that decision instead of deciding to torture him somewhat to see whether or not you could obtain any further important information from him. That is the question.

MR PRINSLOO: It wasn't something that I considered at that stage.

MR MALAN: The question is, why not, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot answer that.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you agree with me that this does not make any sense?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you considered information about Kibuza to be of importance and all along Mr Mbizana was cooperating with you and the only time he doesn't cooperate, you don't take any other action to prompt his cooperation. And you cannot tell this Committee why you couldn't or did not decide to use a method that would have assisted you to extract what you are terming as important information which you wanted to have from Mr Mbizana.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, during my discussion with Mr Mbizana, in an attempt to persuade him to offer his cooperation again, he assumed the position that I could kill him if I wanted to. He stated it in so many words, he said "You can kill me if you want to, I won't expose anything". And I spent a long time talking to him. I threatened him and when I saw that this would not elicit any reaction from him - as I've stated he was a dedicated member of MK, I then realised that I had reached a dead-end with him and that there was no further purpose with this.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you threaten him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I threatened him with violence and told him that he could be charged.

CHAIRPERSON: You only threatened him with violence, but did not proceed to effect such violence?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. Chairperson, after my lengthy discussion with him and my threats and my attempts to persuade him and after having told him what he could expect, I realised that there was nothing further to be obtained from this person and that it would be senseless to continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Neither did you seek the assistance of the other members of your unit to try and extract that kind of information.

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, that is why I went to Brig Cronje and told him that I had reached a dead-end with this man and that is when I suggested that he be eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you discuss this with Mr Crafford who was your senior at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I believe that I discussed it with him. Yes, I discussed it with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not try and elicit his assistance with regard to the interrogation of Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no. At that stage, as I have already stated, one needed background regarding what it was about and Crafford did not possess that background, he wouldn't have known how the MK organisation and background and methods connected with one another.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

You have testified that he said that you could kill him if you wanted to. This is the first time that you have stated something like that, why have you not mentioned it before?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it appears in my written application, it has just reoccurred to me when I was examined in detail regarding my discussion with him after his change in attitude.

MR VAN HEERDEN: With what sort of violence did you threaten him?

MR PRINSLOO: I told him that I would hit him if he didn't want to provide any information voluntarily. There were many methods at our disposal. MK members were aware of the methods which were applied by the Security Branch at that stage.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then I will not take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, may I be assisted by Mr Prinsloo.

Where is it stated that he said you could kill him if you wanted to, he was not prepared to cooperate and divulge the information that you wanted? Can you draw our attention to the particular paragraph or page in your application? The incident with regard to this issue is dealt with at paragraph 5, which starts from page 339 until 340. Now where else is this dealt with because my reading of paragraph 5 does not show anything to that effect.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that is the paragraph that I have referred to. In the fifth line -

It was within that context that he also told me that I could kill him if I wanted to because he wasn't prepared to say anything further. He was absolutely dedicated.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, the question is - you did not state this in your application.

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Well then don't tell us any stories, just answer the question. If you have made a mistake then say so, because you are wasting a tremendous amount of time. Just answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is correct that that was never stated by you in your application and neither did you say that in your evidence-in-chief. Neither did you say this in your evidence-in-chief.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

I see in your application you state that Mandla stated it unequivocally that he and another group of MK members would murder these persons should he have the opportunity to escape or be charged. Do you confirm this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: This sort of statement, isn't that merely the regular kind of statement which who had been arrested would make with regard to security related transgressions?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, it would vary from case to case.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But it taken place in the past?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And it also took place after this case?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Perhaps I can just qualify. It appeared from other cases and investigations and interrogations that they wanted as soon as possible to manipulate you to charge them so they could have contact with a legal representative who could then channel further information through the ANC, or at least provide information regarding where concealed information could be found.

MR MALAN: Wasn't that the case with all prosecutions?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. But once again I must reiterate that it would differ from case to case. Some of the wouldn't adopt that attitude.

MR MALAN: But we are referring to the capacity or the opportunity to channel information.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: It was the same for everybody, Mandla was no unique case.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did Mandla ask you to charge him?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage he merely told me that I could charge him if I wanted to, he didn't care anymore, he wouldn't be saying anything further.

MR VAN HEERDEN: These plans that he had with regard to informers, do I understand you correctly that the plans that he had for the informers was the catalyst for your decision to eliminate him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in conjunction with the policemen. MR VAN HEERDEN: That would then be the SAP members and the informers, which led you to your decision?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. And furthermore, I didn't know what other information could be contained with the sketch plans and so forth.

MR VAN HEERDEN: This situation is similar to most of the prosecutions with which you were involved. That policemen and informers were involved.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So this wasn't a sudden crisis with which you were confronted.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: These things would occur in the execution of your duties?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That policemen and informers could be compromised in the process.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the relationship between you and Crafford like?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I think that we had a reasonably healthy relationship, although I regarded him as my junior with regard to specific security work.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you have a good relationship?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I think so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you recognise him as your senior?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, necessarily in official terms I had to. We also had a number of differences regarding certain aspects, due to his ignorance at that stage regarding the activities of the Security Branch.

MR VAN HEERDEN: When you say that there were official differences you mean that he was your senior in official terms, therefore he was appointed as the commander of your section at that stage, but you regarded yourself as the commander in actual fact.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And in such a sort of a situation these factors would filter through to the other members I'm sure.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would the other members have listened to Mr Crafford if he had issued an order or would they have confirmed it with you first?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was the commander and if he issued an order and if it was a legal order, they would have to execute it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Were you and Mr Crafford ever in any kind of open conflicts with each other?

MR PRINSLOO: There may have been one or two situations where we were in conflict with each other. I cannot recall.

MR VAN HEERDEN: My question was whether or not there was open conflict between the two of you.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but not consistently, only with regard to specific points.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And the other members of the unit must certainly then have been aware of this.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The typical human reaction to this would have been tension in the team, if there was a leadership crisis.

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall that there was any real tension within the group as such, because work came first.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, where is this taking us?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I will leave that question then.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do I understand your evidence correctly that Brig Cronje gave the order for Mandla to be eliminated?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was after I suggested it to him and he said "Yes, eliminate him".

MR VAN HEERDEN: And you also informed him that Mandla was a member of the group that had been arrested.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was completely up to speed regarding the relevant information.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr van Heerden, you are re-examining his old evidence. If there is anything new that you wish to put about this, why don't you just ask him to confirm that particular aspect of his evidence so that you can get to the point that you wish to make?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly.

The place where the tents had been put up, I just want to know whether the owner of the farm was aware of the activities which were taking place on the farm.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I have testified to that already. I have explained what the purpose was.

CHAIRPERSON: We do have that evidence, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Chairperson. I've got no further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Heerden. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Prinsloo, Mr Kruger who I am representing was under your command during that time.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have a bundle there before you and I would like to refer you to page 358. Mr Kruger will testify that the information - if you consult paragraph 2 -

The paragraph that contains this information would be paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. This was information which you gave to those persons in your section who served under you. He was not involved in the investigation, he is aware of this information because you gave him this information.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And furthermore he will testify that he and Sgt Ludick and Lt Roodt were instructed to guard this person. Are you aware of that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it is possible. As I've already testified yesterday, I'm no longer certain of precisely who guarded Mbizana when.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to Mr Kruger you selected specific persons who were not involved in the investigation of such a matter, and his reason for that was that it was your policy to appoint persons to guard a person who were not aware of anything, so that the subject could not be intimidated by the guards.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was part of my modus operandi, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, do you want to re-examine?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Prinsloo, this group, are you aware that they received amnesty?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And if a person such as Mandla were to be arrested he would have been detained in terms of Section 29 and you would then have been obliged to notify his family and dependants regarding that detention.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that would have been legislative requirements.

ADV PRINSLOO: So they would have been aware that he was in the hands of the police?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: It appears from what is put here that Goosen and Momberg received an order from Brig Cronje to blow up a corpse, did either Goosen or Momberg at any stage when they saw that this was a living person, state that this was not their order? Did they ever state anything like that to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: The fact that Mandla was detained on the farm where the interrogation took place, according to your evidence, it appears that various members from Compol were on the farm. Was this all with the knowledge of Brig Cronje? Was he aware that they were all there?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, Brig Cronje was informed that we had set up a temporary base from where we were operating in order to collect information.

ADV PRINSLOO: Because it would appear that there were various persons, among others, the Branch Commander, such as Crafford and various others, who were there on the farm.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: So Compol had much of its staff members on the farm and not in the office. Would Cronje have been aware of this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he would have been informed as a course of procedure.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr I interpose, Mr Prinsloo.

Mr Prinsloo, the applicant, are you saying that Brig Cronje was aware that Mandla was being held at the farm for purposes of interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, what I meant was that Brig Cronje was aware that there was a temporary base outside Pretoria, from where we were operating and I cannot recall whether or not I told him that I had transferred Mandla to the farm. It may have been discussed, but I cannot pertinently state at which stage I discussed this with him.

ADV PRINSLOO: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Prinsloo, after this person Mandla had been killed and his body had been blown up and you reported this to Brig Cronje, did Brig Cronje at any stage approach you subsequently and tell you that Momberg or Goosen had reported to him that there was no longer a corpse, but that they had to assist in the killing and blowing up of a living person?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: But you did mention to Brig Cronje that this task had been completed?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I briefly informed him that our work had been completed.

ADV PRINSLOO: And as I understand your evidence, just for clarity's sake, the point in time when you received an order from Brig Cronje to eliminate this person was a number of days before the actual elimination and assault took place.

MR PRINSLOO: I think it was two days before the execution thereof. Yes, it was two days before.

ADV PRINSLOO: In an affidavit which has been served before the Honourable Committee, Exhibit A, this appears to be an affidavit from Jakob Jan Hendrik van Jaarsveld, in paragraph three of that affidavit it is stated -

Do you know anything about this?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I can only imagine that W/O Sithole was attacked.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is there any information that you had which indicated that an interrogation of the person, Mandla, would take place with regard to the attack on W/O Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

Mr Prinsloo, I am happy to ultimately say you are excused as a witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you very much, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, who is going to be the next witness?

MR BOTHA: Madam Chair, Mr Goosen will be the next witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ERIC GOOSEN: (sworn states)

MR ALBERTS: Madam Chair, might I just at this stage before commencing with the leading of Mr Goosen's evidence, just request that they adjust this microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Alberts.

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Thank you Madam Chairlady.

Mr Goosen, your application with regard to the Mandla incident as you call it, appears in bundle 2 and this goes from page 49 up to page 125, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Are you aware of the contents of those pages?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: I shall be as brief as possible with you. The general background where you state your political motivation appears amongst others, from pages 49 to 92 of the bundle.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents?

MR GOOSEN: I do, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: The incident itself is dealt with on page 92 up to page 104.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And then there are summaries and certain annexures from page 105 and further. Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of those pages?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you refer from pages 93 to 104, amongst others?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. Mr Goosen, for present purposes I shall only deal with singular aspects with regard to the incident and I will mainly concentrate on the differences between your evidence and that of Mr Prinsloo, which has just been completed.

From whom did you receive your instructions?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I received my direct instructions from Brig Cronje.

MR ALBERTS: And what was that instruction?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, to dispose of a corpse and to destroy all identification of that corpse.

MR ALBERTS: And under whose command would that take place?

MR GOOSEN: That would have taken place under the command of Capt Prinsloo as I understood, who was the Unit Commander of Unit C.

MR ALBERTS: Which unit were you?

MR GOOSEN: Unit A, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: It is common cause that Lt Momberg was also involved there, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: In which unit was he?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he was also attached to Unit A.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. We know that before your involvement or before you really became involved in the execution of this operation, you built an explosive device, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And thereafter, according to your statement, there was a meeting between yourself and Lt Momberg and Capt Prinsloo, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, it was approximately a day after I received the initial instruction and the explosive device was prepared by myself already and I was called to Capt Prinsloo's office and I found Lt Momberg there as well.

MR ALBERTS: And what was said during that meeting?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, no detail was discussed with us with regard to person Mandla, he only asked us if we were ready for the operation and we answered in the affirmative and he arranged a time for us to meet in order to execute the operation.

MR ALBERTS: And what was that time?

MR GOOSEN: It was approximately 8 o'clock that evening, the same evening of this meeting in his office.

MR ALBERTS: And where would your meeting ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue.

What time was the first meeting during that day?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was the afternoon of that particular day, but it was after lunchtime on that day.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. And then you agreed to rendezvous that evening, where would you meet?

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue. I apologise for interrupting you.

Where were your offices?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, also on the first floor in the Compol building but on the left wing and Unit C was on the right-hand side of the building.

MNR MALAN: "U kantore was op dieselfde perseel, dit was nie 'n lang reis na ...(tussenbeide)"

MR GOOSEN: No, on the contrary it was on the same floor in the same building, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Where would you rendezvous that evening?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the agreed point was in front of the Compol building in Pretoria Street.

MR ALBERTS: Because Capt Prinsloo's evidence was that you agreed to meet on the other side of the Hartebeespoortdam on the Britz road, that you would meet there.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I deny that rendezvous point, we met in front of the Compol building as I have mentioned in my documents.

MR ALBERTS: And you say that you then did meet there.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. Lt Momberg and I arrived in a yellow Ford Sierra. Firstly we arrived at the Compol building and in front of the building there was a yellow demarcated line where police vehicles could stop and we stopped there and a few minutes later Capt Prinsloo stopped in front of the Compol building in his blue Cressida official police vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: And which vehicle did you use from there?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, all three of us climbed into the Cressida vehicle and we departed in the Cressida vehicle. Capt Prinsloo was the driver, Lt Momberg sat in the passenger's seat and I sat in the back.

MR ALBERTS: I get the impression that already at that stage it was decided that you would drive in the direction of Rustenburg.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson, the area Rustenburg was initially identified by Capt Prinsloo as the place where we would move to. While we were in the vehicle he informed us that the person or the man was already in the boot and that we would directly move to the Rustenburg area.

MR ALBERTS: Why would he tell you that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can only assume that as I understood the instruction that we had to get rid of a corpse and the time that we met at Compol, that we would first initially move to another place where we would load the corpse and from there we would move to Rustenburg. For clandestine operations we very seldom at 8 o'clock in the evening in front of Compol building.

MR ALBERTS: If I understand you correctly you are saying that 8 o'clock was exceptionally early for the start of the execution of this type of operation.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. The following point which I would like to deal with is the aspect surrounding the coke that was given to Mandla. If I understand your evidence correctly you drove from the Compol building up to the Rustenburg road and there at some point, Capt Prinsloo pulled the vehicle off the road underneath an overhead bridge.

MR GOOSEN: That is affirmative, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And everybody disembarked there and while you were standing there Mandla was fetched from the boot.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct. Capt Prinsloo unlocked the boot and at that stage it was not known to me that it was Mandla, and I saw a black man in the boot.

MR ALBERTS: And that is not what you expected?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, the instruction that I received from Brig Cronje, and as I understood it, was to destroy a corpse and my interpretation thereof would be that the person in the boot was already dead.

MR ALBERTS: It is common cause between yourself and Mr Prinsloo that Mandla was given a coke to drink there. What reaction did Mandla show after he consumed this coke?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as in my statement the coke had an immediate affect on Mandla, upon which he showed indications of dizziness and he was on the point of collapsing when Capt Prinsloo pushed him back into the boot of the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Alberts.

How immediate was this reaction? Would you say he immediately reacted after a minute or two? Can you approximate?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was a minute or three. He finished the coke and minutes thereafter he showed these symptoms. It was not that he was in the middle of drinking the coke and the coke fell, he finished the coke and thereafter, after a minute or three he showed these symptoms, upon which he was pushed back into the boot.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Did you see anything on his body during the time that he was standing there and he was drinking the coke?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, after Mandla was made to stand at the rear of the vehicle, the handcuffs were removed by Capt Prinsloo, upon which Capt Prinsloo gave him a coke. All of us were standing at the rear of the vehicle. Capt Prinsloo testified that there were burn marks or signs of injury on his forehead, but there were no burn marks on this person's forehead.

MR ALBERTS: Was he dressed?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson yes, he was dressed, he was wearing pants and a long-sleeved shirt and he was wearing shoes as well.

MR ALBERTS: And from there you drove and according to the statement ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue.

Did you and Prinsloo and Momberg also consume coke there?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson. Directly after Mandla's were removed and he received a coke, Capt Prinsloo also gave us cokes and we drank this in his presence. We were still drinking our cokes and he was rushing Mandla to finish the coke, and afterwards he showed symptoms and he was pushed back.

MR MALAN: Can you recall where the cokes were fetched from?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo moved to the car.

MR MALAN: So he did not fetch the coke from the boot, he fetched it from inside the car.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you not see it inside the car while you were travelling?

MR GOOSEN: No.

MR MALAN: You did not see a cooler bag in the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, not that I can recall. I had a carry bag that I carried the explosives in, I placed in the back of the vehicle. I cannot recall whether I put it on top of another bag, but I know I put my bag at the back.

MR MALAN: Can you recall whether there was a different approach to the handing out of the cokes, or did you think that all of you received the same coke?

MR GOOSEN: I thought all of us received the same coke.

MR MALAN: It was cans of coke?

MR GOOSEN: It was cans of coke and while we were all present we opened these cokes. Mandla also opened his coke.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: And from there you continued in the direction of Rustenburg?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. I beg your pardon Mr Goosen, there is one more aspect that I need to cover. If I understand the evidence, or if I recall the evidence of Capt Prinsloo correctly, he denies these events as you have sketched them here with regard to the embarking and disembarking and the handcuffs, but he denies pertinently that he had pushed his finger into Mandla's eye when Mandla was pushed back into the vehicle while he was under the influence of this coke. Would you please tell the Committee what your experience of it was.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after this person had shown these symptoms and after he had drank the coke and was pushed back into the boot, Capt Prinsloo took his finger and pushed it into Mandla's eye. I cannot recall the exact words, but he wanted to ensure that the person was in this condition and not putting on.

MR ALBERTS: Did you see this happen?

MR GOOSEN: I confirm that, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Did Mandla show any reaction to the fact that Mr Prinsloo's finger was placed in his eye?

MR GOOSEN: None whatsoever, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: What was the condition of Mandla as you observed him before you drove further?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, if I could summarise it, and I think in my statement I said he was lifeless and limp.

MR MALAN: Before you drove now, what did he say when you stopped there under the overhead bridge? Why did you stop?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he said that - he stopped and he said that we will all drink a cooldrink and the man was in the boot. He bought cooldrink for us and he wanted this man to drink a cooldrink and we should drink as well. And after Mandla's handcuffs were removed and he was given the coke, Capt Prinsloo mentioned to myself and Lt Momberg, he said the person was Mandla. He did not say the man was MK Mandla, he said that this man was just Mandla, but no further discussion ensued as to who and what Mandla was.

MR MALAN: You said in the vehicle, but in your statement you say that when he opened the boot you said that the man was alive. Why only were you surprised then when he told you in the car that the corpse will also have a cooldrink? The "corpse".

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, this is where it came to light and my first assumption was that it was not a corpse. When we stopped and the boot was opened this black live man was lying in there.

MR MALAN: But you knew he was alive when you stopped because he would drink a cooldrink.

MR GOOSEN: I don't know whether Capt Prinsloo might have used the wrong expression there, but the real first impact that I had when I realised that this person was still alive was when the boot was unlocked.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Alberts.

About the road, was this the Britz/Rustenburg road which now goes to Pilansberg, which runs parallel to The Dam road?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the present road I do not know, but I know when you go over Silkaatsnek you turn left before you get to Britz, up to a four-way stop street, there one turns right and a short way from there one turns right and then you are on a double carriageway and that is the road on which we stopped. It is in-between the Britz and Rustenburg road.

MR MALAN: Yes, that is the same road. I just wanted to get clarity about that.

MR ALBERTS: You got to destroy a corpse and now you fetch a man from the boot who is still alive, his handcuffs are removed, you stop along the road and if we look at time at that stage, we must be referring to quarter to nine or 9 o'clock at the latest, there must have been other cars passing on that road. Was there no risk to that, did you not discuss any risk? Did you not ask anything?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, we did not discuss any risk and no reference was made to a risk during this stoppage and the drinking of cooldrink there.

MR MALAN: Did you not say anything to Capt Prinsloo about your surprise about this live person?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, if you read my application correctly, after I received my initial instruction from Brig Cronje he said that for the duration of the operation I would be under the command of Capt Prinsloo. At that stage I was only a Sergeant. During the observation that it was no longer a corpse but a living person, I did not indicate any reaction as a junior. I cannot recall whether Lt Momberg expressed his surprise, but if I recall Capt Momberg's demeanour I would think that he would have said something.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, we cannot recall somebody's nature. Mandla did not say anything about his travelling? He stands up there, he is not drugged at that stage, he's fully conscious, he was satisfied with driving in the boot, he climbed out and he drinks a coke.

MR GOOSEN: I did not ask him whether he was satisfied, but he did not indicate whether he was dissatisfied driving around in the boot of the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: Before we move any further, Mr Goosen, when you saw this man alive and well there and you realised that it was not a corpse which you were dealing with, what did you think then, how did you think the operation would continue from there onwards?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I realised in the execution of our instructions that the person had to be killed. I did not think in which manner specifically at that stage, but I knew that with the blowing up of such a person he has to be killed in some or other manner. What I can also add is that from my initial discussion with Brig Cronje and discussions which followed with Capt Prinsloo, the instruction may have been amended, of which I am unaware, I can only speculate about this. But I would just like to mention that my instruction which I initially received from Brig Cronje, which I only received on one occasion, might have been changed because I was under the command of Capt Prinsloo.

MR ALBERTS: So you realised now that - to use the language of that time, you realised that the man was to be eliminated?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And if I understand you correctly, you were under the command of Capt Prinsloo at that time.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And would you be responsible for it or would Momberg be responsible for it or would he himself be responsible for this elimination?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I do not know who would be responsible for the killing of Mandla, but I associated myself with the fact that the person had to be eliminated before we could get to our initial instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose ...(intervention)

ADV MOTATA: You're saying that after you drank the coke and you realised that the man was alive, did you yourself say I had to kill the man before he was eliminated. Was this before the coke or afterwards?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the affect of the coke I saw as a method of neutralising this man in order to execute this man. I regarded that as the method.

CHAIRPERSON: May I, with your leave Mr Alberts.

You had been instructed by somebody quite senior, who was a Divisional Commander of a unit and that's Brig Cronje, that you had to dispose of a body and your instructions were quite precise and clear. Now when you realised that this person was quite alive and to use your expression, you thought that the instructions had been amended, did you take up that issue with the person under whose command you were, in the name of Mr Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, no, as junior member I would not discuss this amended plan or direct any questions to Capt Prinsloo about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Your curiosity did not even allow you to make an enquiry, without have to question the amended instruction?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, with many of these instances the principle of need-to-know is applied and it was drilled in if something is not disclosed to you, you do not ask questions about it, if people want to inform you they will inform you.

CHAIRPERSON: And you then thought the need-to-know principle was applicable in this instance.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson, from my side. Of the amended plan, I would not have asked if the plan was changed, why is it not a corpse? I as a Sergeant would not question a Captain at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you after the operation had been carried out, discuss your findings in relation to a living person with Brig Cronje, who had initially instructed you to be part of the operation?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, no, because the operation was under the command of Capt Prinsloo, it was the normal practice that the senior member would report to the Brigadier and the Brigadier did not ask me about this anymore and therefore I would not out of my own have discussed this incident with the Brigadier.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not have a duty as a person who had been directly instructed by Brig Cronje, to go back and personally report to him?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, once again I did not know whether there were amended plans placed on the desk or on the table by Brig Cronje from Capt Prinsloo. So I was approached, we were there at the scene, my instructions were (a) and now we found (b), I don't know why it is (b), but I would not question it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: I do not understand why you refer to an amended plan, because your job was still to get rid of a body.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. The point here is that the initial order that I received, according to this I understood that the person would be dead and that there would be a corpse that we would be destroying. That is how I interpreted my order.

MR MALAN: Yes, but it remained your order that you were to destroy a corpse. All you found out was that the corpse was not yet a corpse.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: In other words, the basis upon which your plan had been formulated, the basis upon which your responsibility would come into effect had not been established yet.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct.

MR MALAN: But that is why I don't understand why you refer to an amended plan, or are you simply trying to say that you thought that the person was already dead? Is that what you mean?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you found out that he wasn't dead and that you call an amended plan, so I don't understand this.

MR GOOSEN: That was my interpretation. I understood that the person would already be dead and upon arrival at the side of the road the person was still alive. I don't know whether any discussion took place between the Brigadier and Mr Prinsloo, that upon the execution of this operation the person would become a corpse. I understood that it would be corpse, that is why I inferred that there could have been an amendment.

MR MALAN: As I understand you, you understood that it would be a corpse from the time that you spoke to Brig Cronje.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you found out that you were still to destroy a corpse, but that this person was not yet a corpse.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think your evidence in this regard is quite clear. After that you drove to Rustenburg.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And during this journey to Rustenburg and further you were informed regarding who and what precisely this man in the boot was.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And what his political participation was and so forth.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: That he was a terrorist and so forth?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I think that Capt Prinsloo has given evidence about this previously. I will refer to the handgrenade incidents, the shooting of Seuntjie Vuma, the planting of a limpet mine at a bus stop in Silverton among others. This was the discussion which was held by Capt Prinsloo to give us a brief background about the man.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. It isn't necessary for us to refer to it in detail, I don't think that there can be any dispute surrounding those facts.

Eventually you arrived at the scene where among others you would be responsible for the explosion.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. After we left Rustenburg and travelled on the appointed road, Momberg explained us into a remote road which he knew rather well. We turned into that road. The terrain allowed for the vehicle to turn back in the direction of the road from whence we had come.

MR ALBERTS: And after you had stopped, what took place then?

MR GOOSEN: The three of us climbed out. Capt Prinsloo opened the boot and I think with the assistance of Momberg he lifted Mandla from the back onto the ground and then from this point onwards, Capt Prinsloo dragged him to the back of the vehicle, approximately two or three metres, upon which I took out the explosives from the back seat and placed it next to the passenger door and Momberg and I began with the preparation of the explosive device.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. What happened to Mandla? And what was Capt Prinsloo's conduct while you were busy there at the left back door of the vehicle, while you were compiling this explosive device?

MR GOOSEN: While Momberg and I were busy with the composition of the explosive device, Capt Prinsloo went back to the back of the vehicle to the boot space, he said that he just wanted to determine that this person wouldn't move, which would then mean that the explosives would move from their designated spot and that would hamper any kind of identification process.

He took the spade out of the vehicle and moved back to where Mandla was positioned and administered a few blows to him. I have stated that this was with the sharp end of the spade, and I must just add that the cracking sounds which came from where the blows were dealt with the spade to the head were not dull thudding noises, these were sharp noises. And upon placing the mini-limpet mines on the body, I saw the cuts on the head of Mandla.

ADV MOTATA: But could you at that moment determine whether or not the man was still alive?

MR GOOSEN: No. From our departure from the meeting place next to the road to this point where we opened the boot and lifted Mandla out, he was still lifeless, he was not conscious. We placed him on the ground and he was dragged away from that point and he was still unconscious or lifeless in my opinion. He was not awake.

MR ALBERTS: Did you make any attempt to determine precisely what the man's condition was at that point while you were making preparations for the explosion?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They couldn't, Mr Alberts, they were a few metres away from where Mr Prinsloo was left with the body.

Is that not your evidence, Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, I was occupied with the carry bag and I was packing out all the devices on the ground, I didn't go to feel whether or not this person was alive or whether there was any pulse.

MR ALBERTS: Perhaps I may have phrased the question weakly. What I actually meant is that while you placed the explosive device on the body, immediately before the explosion took place, in other words, when you were in the immediate vicinity of Mandla's body, during that process did you make any attempt to determine whether or not there was still any life in this person? Did you feel for a pulse, did you check for breathing or any such sort of thing?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Then could you briefly tell us how you prepared the body for the explosion, what the position of the body was and where these mini-limpet mines were placed and so forth.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after the preparation of the mini-limpet mines I found the body position on the left side ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I don't think it's necessary for us to elaborate on this. Does your evidence differ from Mr Prinsloo's?

MR GOOSEN: No.

MR MALAN: Can we leave it at that?

MR ALBERTS: In my submission there is indeed a difference because Prinsloo referred to some form of draping with a limpet mine in the lap and so forth. Is that what took place, Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, I think Mr Prinsloo ultimately conceded to what you put to him with regard to how he ultimately ...(intervention)

MR ALBERTS: If that is so, Madam Chair, I won't pursue it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: That is so.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. And thereafter the explosion took place while you were driving away, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, we were approximately 150m away as we had moved onto the gravel road. After I had activated the explosive I climbed into the vehicle, the others were already in the vehicle, I climbed in, we drove away and as we got to the big road as such, and turned right, I looked back and firstly I saw the flames and then I saw the explosion.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. Then there are just two other aspects that I would like to touch upon. In fact there are three.

Let us just return to the explosion for a moment. In all fairness towards Mr Prinsloo, yesterday upon your instruction I put it to him that immediately before he hit Mandla over the head with the spade he said something. Can you recall this?

MR GOOSEN: Captain Prinsloo?

MR ALBERTS: Yes, that is correct.

MR GOOSEN: He walked back to the vehicle after he had dragged him away and said that he just wanted to make sure that this person would not shift, which would then make the explosive devices shift and then hamper the identification of the body.

MR ALBERTS: I'm sorry, you have already given evidence about that, let us move on. There is another aspect which was discussed with Mr Prinsloo during cross-examination yesterday and that was the situation regarding Sam Maropa, or better known as "Drumsticks". Could you briefly inform the Committee what your knowledge is regarding that issue.

MR GOOSEN: My knowledge is limited to hearsay. A few years after this incident we left the Security Branch and became an intelligence unit and many of the former C-Section black colleagues came over to the intelligence component. Based upon hearsay it was a general fact among my black colleagues that they were aware or at least that the suspicion existed that Sam Maropa's condition ...(intervention)

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson, what is the value of this evidence? What is the relevance of it to the relevant facts of this matter? He doesn't know when this took place. It could have taken place quite a number of years later. Or is this a question where one of those cans of coke was used which would have been very old by the time of this incident? I don't see the relevance of this.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was definitely after this incident because if the hearsay reached me before this coke incident I would have known due to the immediate effect of the coke, that I could link Sam Maropa to Mandla's incident for what it's worth.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) - no microphone)

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot say with certainty whether it was a year or six months, I cannot say with certainty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, maybe you can help us by ...(indistinct - no microphone) Maybe this is an appropriate time to take a ten minute adjournment.

ERIC GOOSEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, we adjourned when we were still considering the importance of the evidence you are trying to lead in relation to the Sam Maropa matter. Can you indicate to us if there is really any property value with regard to the evidence you now seek to elicit from Mr Goosen?

MR ALBERTS: Madam Chair, in view of the fact that I do not have any accurate instructions as to the time lapse between this incident and the Maropa incident, I'm going to leave it here. I won't touch on that any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And I suppose that concludes your evidence-in-chief of Mr Goosen.

MR ALBERTS: There is one aspect that I will still lead Mr Goosen on briefly and that is something that is not contained in the papers because - well, that came up in cross-examination and that concerns the discussion between Mr Goosen and Mr Prinsloo in The House of Coffees.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, House of Coffees.

MR ALBERTS: I'll deal with that and that will then conclude my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: (cont)

Thank you.

Mr Goosen, where were you stationed during approximately November 1996?

MR GOOSEN: I was stationed at the Intelligence Unit of Internal Security, Gauteng.

MR ALBERTS: And where is that located physically?

MR GOOSEN: Our offices were in Johannesburg and we also had a temporary office in Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: Were you in the Johannesburg office?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And where was Mr Prinsloo at that stage?

MR GOOSEN: During this period in time that I've referred to he was still with head office in Internal Security.

MR ALBERTS: And is that in Pretoria?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And during November 1996, did you have any discussion whatsoever with Mr Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. From my discussions with some of my black members, it came to light that many of them were in confusion regarding the TRC activities and whether or not they should apply for amnesty. And it also came to light that some of them had been approached by the A-G's office in order to be State witnesses and I brought those facts to the attention of Capt Prinsloo.

MR ALBERTS: How did you do so?

MR GOOSEN: Since 1989 when I left the Security Branch, I had not had any contact with Mr Prinsloo again. After a number of calls I managed to obtain his cell number which was his official cell number, upon which I contacted him.

MR ALBERTS: So it was a telephonic admission?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And at the end of that month, which would be the beginning of December 1996, you were busy with your legal team in preparation of your application.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And at this point in time while you were in preparation, you once again spoke to Mr Prinsloo.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, he telephoned me upon which we arranged a meeting at The House of Coffees in Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: And did you then meet him there?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: What did you discuss?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, among others we discussed the Mandla incident and the fact that it was my intention to apply for amnesty, and I knew that the involvement of me and Momberg existed and I told him that I would be applying for amnesty.

MR ALBERTS: Did you indicate to you whether or not he would be lodging a similar application or not?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage Mr Prinsloo indicated to me that he would not be applying.

MR ALBERTS: Was that during the meeting or during the telephonic discussion that he told you that he would not be applying?

MR GOOSEN: I have to correct myself. During the telephonic discussion he told me that he was not interested in applying, but at The House of Coffees he then indicated that he would be applying for amnesty.

MR ALBERTS: Did he make any suggestions to you during the meeting at The House of Coffees with regard to your application and his application, or not?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he said that we should apply from one camp, that we should have one joint story which we could offer as input.

MR ALBERTS: And with regard to the so-called joint story with regard to this incident, the Mandla incident, what did he indicate to you should the story be?

MR GOOSEN: He indicated that we should not refer to the meeting point at Compol in any way, also not to the administering of the coke to Mandla at the rendezvous point on the road and also not the fact that a spade was used to hit Mandla with.

MR ALBERTS: What was your attitude towards this?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage I did not differ with him, but I realised that I was already in the process of formulating my documents and that this would be contradictory to my version.

MR ALBERTS: And in terms of that realisation, what did you do?

MR GOOSEN: After we had finished our coffee I went directly to the advocate's chambers and I went to your office and told you about the influence which was presented to me.

MR ALBERTS: Did you take any further steps?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, I immediately made attempts to contact Mr Momberg with whom I had not had contact for years, via a former colleague of ours. At head office I obtained Mr Momberg's cell number and I contacted him with this number.

MR ALBERTS: And did you subsequently meet Mr Momberg or not?

MR GOOSEN: On the same day that I telephonically contacted him, I did indeed meet Lt Momberg. As you are aware you were also present along with my brother and the firm Weavind and Weavind.

MR ALBERTS: And on what day did this meeting take place with regard to the meeting that you had earlier had with Mr Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: On the very same day.

MR ALBERTS: So the sequence of events was that you were contacted by Mr Prinsloo, after that the meeting at The House of Coffees took place and then you contacted Mr Momberg and on the very same day, all these events took place on the same day, you then also met with Mr Momberg on that day?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Goosen.

MR MALAN: May I just interpose. On the proposed version of your evidence with regard to Mr Prinsloo, what would he have said about the way that Mandla died, if you could not refer to the spade?

MR GOOSEN: I cannot recall the details, but the three points which occurred to me immediately was the rendezvous point at Compol building to which we were not supposed to refer, the factor of the coke specifically, the coke on the side of the road and the spade. We were not to refer to any of these points. And I cannot recall precisely in which manner it would be presented that Mandla had been immobilised. That I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Madam Chair, might I ask one further question following on the question from the Panel?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may ask only one and only if it emanates from the questioning by Mr Malan, you may do

so.

MR ALBERTS: I will attempt to do so as best I can.

Mr Goosen, let us just get to the point. After this discussion and after this suggestion by Capt Prinsloo, what was your fear? I mean what was everything steering towards?

MR GOOSEN: My interpretation was that we were not supposed to present a true and full disclosure of facts and that this could be to the detriment of all my other applications, and particularly with regard to this incident.

MR ALBERTS: Did you draw any inferences regarding who would then be directly responsible for the death of the person?

MR GOOSEN: According to the scenario presented to me, it would have been me, Mr Momberg and Mr Cronje.

MR ALBERTS: And was this essentially what took place at that time?

MR GOOSEN: No.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe it would be appropriate to start with Mr Prinsloo, to cross-examine Mr Goosen.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, if I understand your evidence correctly, you are applying for amnesty for a person's death in which you were an accomplice and that you were also later involved in the destruction of the body of this person. Is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, among others that is what I am applying for with regard to this incident.

ADV PRINSLOO: But those would be the primary points?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well. And Mr Goosen, I accept that in your mind there was no doubt that the reason why this person had to be killed and the reason why his body had to be destroyed had nothing further than a political objective. There was no personal gain, no sense of malice, it was the execution of the express or implied duties that all three of you had.

MR GOOSEN: I can answer in the affirmative, because my divisional commander had given me the initial order and I knew that this was to take place in my official capacity with a determined motive. Also with regard the point where the person was blown up and the fact that this situation was presented to me there, convinced me that we had to do with a political activist and also explained why he could not be released.

ADV PRINSLOO: What I have just referred to is what you found in the presence of Mr Prinsloo, that you found a living person there, that this person was taken and blown up. This is what I am referring you to and upon that basis you agree with the facts?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Now with regard to Brig Cronje and the order that he gave you, it was that you were to destroy a corpse.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And furthermore you would receive further instructions from Mr Prinsloo with regard to the destruction of a corpse, is that correct? That is the order that the highest authority, the Commander, Brig Cronje gave you.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is partially correct. Any further instructions would have been received from Prinsloo, not only with regard to the destruction of the body, but any other instructions would have been received from Mr Prinsloo, because I would have fell under his command at that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you will accept that Brig Cronje must have taken a very well thought out decision regarding this person whose body was to be destroyed, according to your version?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I assumed that.

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes. And the order was specifically about a person who was already dead, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is how I understood the order when mention was made of the destruction of a corpse.

ADV PRINSLOO: And when you got to Prinsloo you found that you were dealing with a living person?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you had already then been asked by the Honourable Member, Mr Motata, about when this person was supposed to be destroyed. With regard to the coke. The three of you and the deceased were standing there, he was alive in your opinion and you had the cokes and you were told that he was the one who was going to blown up. There was no-one else in the boot. Brig Cronje told you about the explosion of the body of a dead person. Can you explain this to us?

MR GOOSEN: When I first realised that this was a living person in the boot, I realised that my order had been to destroy a corpse and this was a living person and that this person in some or other way would have to be neutralised or eliminated before I could execute my order of destroying the corpse by means of an explosive device. Because one would not manage to get a living person to lie down voluntarily in order to be blown up.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you then decide, what were you going to do in order to blow up the body of this person? What would you do to kill the person?

MR GOOSEN: I didn't think of any specific method at that stage of the events at the rendezvous point on the road between Britz and Rustenburg, but as I saw the person's condition deteriorating I saw that this might be the way to neutralise or eliminate the person.

ADV PRINSLOO: But Mr Goosen, before that person had shown any sign of what you had just referred to, while all of you were innocently drinking cokes, what did you think? How, when and where would you kill this person?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I will repeat. I was not thinking of a specific method, my order was to destroy a corpse and I was not thinking of how this person would be neutralised or eliminated because that was not my order.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, let us just take a step back. You stated that Mr Prinsloo met you that afternoon at Compol, along with Mr Momberg and where a discussion was held about certain actions.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: What was discussed?

MR GOOSEN: No detail was discussed regarding Mandla as such, Capt Prinsloo simply wanted to know from us whether or not we were ready for the operation. It was obvious that Capt Prinsloo had also discussed the matter with Brig Cronje. This correlated with the orders which I had received from Brig Cronje. And no detail was discussed during that meeting.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Mr Prinsloo tell you there that you were going to blow up a corpse?

MR GOOSEN: No reference was made to any person or corpse, reference was made to an operation and we were asked whether or not we were ready for the operation.

ADV PRINSLOO: Nothing else regarding the operation was said, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Except that we would have to meet at a specific time at a specific place.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where would that specific place be?

MR GOOSEN: At the Compol building.

ADV PRINSLOO: And at what time?

MR GOOSEN: At approximately 8 o'clock that evening.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well. So you had no particulars about what was going to be done from Prinsloo, except for the fact that you were supposed to meet at 8 o'clock at the Compol building?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, and also that Brig Cronje had given me the instruction that we would be responsible for the destruction of the identification of the corpse.

ADV PRINSLOO: Then you met there at 8 o'clock according to your version, is that correct.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did you climb into your car?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was anything said by Prinsloo about what was happening at that point?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Capt Prinsloo stated that it was no longer necessary to pick up the man or to go to another place to pick up the man, we could drive out directly to Rustenburg.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you deduce from that?

MR GOOSEN: That the man referred to the person or the body or the corpse which was already in the boot when we were picked up.

ADV PRINSLOO: And when you stopped, as Commissioner Malan has already put it to you, did you think that there would be a person in the boot? Did you believe that there would be a corpse in the boot?

MR GOOSEN: At that stage we were told that we would have cooldrinks and I did not draw the immediate inference that there would be a living person, I only realise this when the boot space was opened and I saw the living person in the boot.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who suggested to take the Rustenburg road?

MR GOOSEN: As far as I can recall the initial proposal came from Capt Prinsloo himself, Rustenburg in the Bophuthatswana environment.

ADV PRINSLOO: And who proposed the point where the person was ultimately blown up?

MR GOOSEN: I've already explained that after we went through Rustenburg, Momberg suggested a remote road that he knew of and we moved in that direction.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you told the Amnesty Committee that there was a lot of silence about an aspect which could not be taken lightly, that a person was going to be blown up and that there was no real discussion about the particulars of the operation, you were just told to drive out.

MR GOOSEN: Capt Prinsloo told us to drive out to Rustenburg and I assumed that there would be a predetermined place where the explosion could take place.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, to be open, in the Security Brand there wasn't any kind of rank pulling among people, everybody respected one another's ranks, but there was a greater situation of confidence among the members and you definitely had the right to ask Mr Prinsloo what was going on and how you were going to do it, because this was a joint effort, it wasn't something that was done individually.

MR GOOSEN: I differ from that because on the basis of the need-to-know principle which was applied at the Security Branch, I as a Sergeant would not be able to question a superior officer surrounding his activities. He was in command of the operation and I trusted that he would have covered these aspects.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, the need-to-know basis existed but under these circumstances in which all three of you were in the same vehicle and were going to experience the same thing at the same time, you could not hide behind that need-to-know principle. Please be honest with the Committee.

MR GOOSEN: I am being honest. Certain facts were discussed or disclosed on the way to Rustenburg after we had departed from the rendezvous point. It was during that time that certain facts were made known to us.

ADV PRINSLOO: So there wouldn't have been any meaningless driving around, there would have been a planning about when and where.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you were aware of this.

MR GOOSEN: No, I was unaware of the precise place that we were going to in the Rustenburg environment.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Mr Momberg know?

MR GOOSEN: I can only speculate, I don't know.

ADV PRINSLOO: He's a very good friend of yours, there's a very good understanding between the two of you and there was also a very good understanding between you, Momberg and Prinsloo, isn't that so?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: When you reached the stopping point where the man received the coke and according to you became limp and lifeless, you realised that you were no longer executing Brig Cronje's order but a new order from a different person in the form of Capt Prinsloo. And according to you, you were supposed to blow up a corpse and this was a completely new aspect, the living man.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct. The initial order had to do with a corpse and when we stopped next to the road I realised that this was not a corpse and I assumed that some or other step would have to be taken to neutralise or eliminate this person before we could get to the execution of our order.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, this would then have been an illegal order to kill this man, whether Brig Cronje was the one who issued it or whether it was Prinsloo. Do you agree?

MR GOOSEN: I do not know what the Brigadier or the Captain may have discussed after my initial discussion with the Brigadier. I was acting under order of the Brigadier and ultimately, under the direct order of the Captain.

MR MALAN: The question is, did you know that this was going to be an illegal order to kill the person under these circumstances?

MR GOOSEN: I would not have regarded this an illegal order, I had an order to destroy a corpse, we were involved in an operation.

MR MALAN: Did you believe that it was legal to destroy corpses?

MR GOOSEN: I knew that it was illegal.

MR MALAN: But that's the question.

MR GOOSEN: No, I knew that it was illegal.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you knew that this person was according to the law killed illegally because you are not allowed to kill a person unless this person received the death penalty from the Court at that time.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you knew that you were doing was in promotion of a murder at that stage, under the order of Brig Cronje. Forget the fact of whether the man was living or not.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you associated yourself with it.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, and I was also involved with other operations where similar actions were performed.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well. Now this order which Brig Cronje gave you was there and then you received a new order from Capt Prinsloo, and that was to kill the living person who was standing there in front of you.

MR GOOSEN: I did not receive any direct order from Capt Prinsloo to kill the man, I regarded the substance in the coke as the method to neutralise the man or an agent which led to the elimination of the man, so that his body could be destroyed. I was never instructed to eliminate the man, not by Capt Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: But at that stage you associated yourself with it because you saw that he was taking illegal action by giving the man the coke which would lead to the death of the man.

MR GOOSEN: I associated myself with it.

ADV PRINSLOO: But you associated yourself with whose order?

MR GOOSEN: I did not associate myself with a specific order, I associated myself with an action on the scene.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well with regard to that action on that specific scene it has to do with the death of the person. The question here is, under whose order did you do this? Which enquiries did you make about this man who was standing here that had to be killed? And then he was killed and immediately thereafter his body was blown up and completely destroyed and after that everybody kept quiet. It is common cause.

MR GOOSEN: Later I realised that the substance in the coke had not led to the death of the person, seeing as Capt Prinsloo at the scene where the body was destroyed, made the statement that he was afraid that the man would move and for that reason dealt several blows to the man's head with the spade.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, what took place later is academic at this point. At that stage when you were standing there and you decided to associate it yourself with this action of Capt Prinsloo's, you realised that this man would ultimately be destroyed and be blown up by you and Momberg, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that is what this question is about. I'm giving you the opportunity to respond. Do you not hamper your amnesty application, because you were involved in these actions and you have presented certain aspects which are not correct and I am asking you what happened there at the scene. Prinsloo gave the man a coke which he had taken out of the boot and after this the person became lifeless according to you, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I associated myself with the fact that the initial order with regard to the corpse had not realised and that I was now dealing with a living person and that in some or other manner this person had to be killed and destroyed in order to destroy his physical body. I associated myself with that.

ADV PRINSLOO: But how did you know that you had to do with the man Mandla, that you were going to be destroying?

MR MALAN: With respect, he did not know that this person was Mandla, not from Cronje and not from Prinsloo, until they were travelling.

ADV PRINSLOO: I understand your point, Mr Malan.

You received the order from Brig Cronje that a dead person, not a specific person, a body or a corpse ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MNR MALAN: "Nee, nie 'n spesifieke persoon nie, 'n liggaam of 'n lyk".

MR MALAN: ... no name was ever attached to it at any point.

ADV PRINSLOO: That a corpse would be blown up.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: But now were blowing up another person, a living person.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I'm a lay person when it comes to medical terms. When I blew the person up I did not know whether or not he had died as a result of the blows dealt by the spade. By means of my detonation I may have murdered him or killed him. On the other hand I may simply have destroyed a corpse. I don't know whether I killed him or whether I simply destroyed him, but I did associate myself with this action because I was on the scene.

ADV PRINSLOO: The question is that you were blowing a person other than a dead person ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: With great respect, Mr Prinsloo, it was not another person other than a dead person, he was going to blow up someone who was not yet dead.

ADV PRINSLOO: I will leave the point at that, Honourable Chairperson, but then we must accept that the same person that Brig Cronje referred to is this person who was blown up.

MR MALAN: Well I think that's clear. The person that Brig Cronje referred to according to the evidence of the applicant, was indeed not yet dead. At no stage was there any doubt that this could have been somebody else. There is no such evidence before us. Or do you wish to lead such evidence? Because from your side there was also no such evidence from Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, that is not what I am putting Honourable Commissioner, it is the fact that Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg have put it that Prinsloo had already killed a person that they were going to destroy. And it is on the basis of that that I am leading this cross-examination. They received an order from Cronje to blow up a dead person, then they encountered another person, a living person, was this then the same order, because this appears to be something different.

MR MALAN: I think he has answered this question about four times already.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, may I try and understand your enquiry, because I'm a little confused as to where you want to go to. The way I understand the evidence is that there is no conflict from the version given by Mr Prinsloo and the version given by Mr Goosen, that the order that was given by Brig Cronje related to the person who was ultimately killed and blown up through the explosives used by Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg. I don't think there is any dispute with regard to that piece of evidence, either from your side nor either from Mr Goosen.

What is it that you are trying to ascertain from Mr Goosen through your cross-examination with regard to the body or the identity of the person who was ultimately blown up by them?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, my question was not directed at ascertaining the identity of the person, because Mr Goosen wouldn't know that because he was only told that a particular person, a body had to be blown up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the enquiry was already - I directed that, I'm satisfied with the answers I got from him and I'm going to move forward to another question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: I'm satisfied with that.

Mr Goosen, when you were driving in the vehicle along with Mr Prinsloo, according to your version, where did you think the body was to be found?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I had no specific idea as to where we would pick up the corpse. I was not placed in Unit C and this operation was a Unit C operation, so I cannot comment.

ADV PRINSLOO: You know what is written in the documents and that is that this person was on a farm in the Hammanskraal area.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. As a member of the Security Branch during that time I was unaware that Unit C had such a farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: I speak of the documents, Mr Goosen, I don't want to waste time.

MR GOOSEN: I read the documents afterwards and I heard of the farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: I speak of now, to place you in the picture. And you know according the version, Mr Prinsloo went to the farm.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you know that the other person who were there at the farm were sent away.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that was testified, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that this person, Mandla, remained there with Mr Prinsloo.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: So when did Mr Prinsloo, if he was alive there on the farm and when the other people were there, when would he have time to get back to Compol to come and see you there and then drive with the body in the boot?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo's said that it was during daylight when he heard of the assault and he gave him the ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: It is not necessary for you to summarise the evidence.

Mr Prinsloo, is the evidence not that the meeting was supposed to be 3 o'clock and then the other meeting was 8 o'clock? Now I do not understand your question.

ADV PRINSLOO: The point, Honourable Chairperson, is that according to Mr Goosen, Mr Prinsloo was there that afternoon at Compol.

MR MALAN: That's correct, yes, that is his evidence, but he said it was approximately 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock, after lunch. It was a very brief meeting where he asked them if they were ready and we shall meet later that evening, 8 o'clock, in front the building.

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Commissioner, he then drove to the farm where he saw the farmer and where this person was apparently assaulted.

MR MALAN: But I cannot understand why you want to assume any knowledge from Mr Goosen about this, because you are now asking him about your client's movements. ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV PRINSLOO: My point is, how does he arrive at Compol with the body in the vehicle.

MR MALAN: But that's a matter for argument. The applicant cannot assist you.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, isn't it Mr Goosen's evidence that he didn't know where the body was being kept?

ADV PRINSLOO: That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that cardinal to your enquiry?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Madam Chair, but with respect, surely one must consider the evidence in the light of the probabilities here, as to whether Prinsloo would be able to be at Compol, going back to the farm, speak to the farmer and then going to Mandla, find him in an assault state, send off the other people, waiting with him and then be back at 8 o'clock. So how does that fit in if he had to go to Hammanskraal.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand what you are trying to do. If you do wish him to respond to what you will later on argue, you may proceed to put it him and get his comment. But his evidence is he didn't know where the body was being kept, so he wouldn't have known how long it would take Mr Prinsloo to go to where the body was being kept and how long it would take him to come back to where they were supposed to be picked up, which was in front of the Compol building, because the meeting that he had with Mr Prinsloo was right in Compol.

ADV PRINSLOO: I'll argue the probabilities, Madam Chair, I'll leave it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may however put it to him and get this comment on what you will be arguing upon.

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, I actually ignited this thing with my questions here, but is the obvious thing not that you will tell the applicant that you will argue that it is improbable that Capt Prinsloo at half past two or 3 o'clock could have been at Compol building and then fetched the corpse and sent people away, or fetched the person and sent the persons away, give him coke and be back at Compol at 8 o'clock? That is what your argument will be, does he wish to comment.

ADV PRINSLOO: I will leave that for argument, Chairperson.

Mr Goosen, do you agree that it would be stupid to drive with a still living person in your boot in the city?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I've said, I would not have assumed that he would have come to Compol with a living person in the boot, my understanding was that it was a corpse and at the meeting at the Compol building I also assumed that it was a corpse that Capt Prinsloo arrived there with.

ADV PRINSLOO: But now we know that it was a living person, Mr Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo also said that he gave the man a coke on the farm at Hammanskraal before our meeting. I think evidence was led in depth about that. So I don't know whether this person was entirely conscious when he arrived at Compol.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you accept that he did give him a coke at Hammanskraal?

MR GOOSEN: I can only go along with what Capt Prinsloo said. He gave him a coke twice, one on the farm and one on the way to Rustenburg.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where this person was helped out of the boot where you stopped, did you assist?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Capt Prinsloo lifted his legs out of the boot and he was cuffed and then he helped him by holding on his upper torso and helped him out of the boot.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was he leaning or what was his position?

MR GOOSEN: He stood with the back of his legs against the back of the rear. It was a built-up backside of the car, it was not like these new cars.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it dark?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, it was dark. It was underneath an overhead bridge.

ADV PRINSLOO: So he could have been tranquillised there at that stage, or still under the influence of the tranquilliser.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, my observation of the person that was standing there was that he was not under the influence of anything.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you went along here to kill someone, can you explain to the Committee how you could see in the dark that this man was not under the influence?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, we were a few steps from each other, it is not unnatural that we make some observation in the dark.

ADV PRINSLOO: Under an overhead bridge. That says something that you wanted to be in the dark under the overhead bridge, and you are telling the Committee that you looked at that. Was there any reason for you to observe that this person had taken any tablets or not, or what his condition was or whether he was under the influence or not?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was his bodily attitude, he did not seem to me as if he was someone under the influence of tranquilliser or inebriated, he was solid on his foot. I based this on, if I could call it his body attitude that he disclosed there and what I observed there. What I observed there was entirely normal to me.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, according to you he leaned against the vehicle. Where would you be able to observe this? He was not walking, he was in leg-irons according to you, his hands were cuffed according to you, so where could you observe it?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he did not have to press with his hands against the car, his handcuffs were removed and he was standing.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was he still leaning against the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Against the rear of the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you specifically observe that, Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: In this case where you would kill a person you make this correct observation, for what purpose? - that he was normal at that stage.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that is how I recalled it when I drew up the documents and that is my recollection with regard to that specific event at the place where we stopped on the Rustenburg road.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are also saying that you did not observe any injury on his forehead?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, was there any reason for you to make such an observation whether he was injured or not?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, the evidence that was led by Capt Prinsloo was that he was injured. I knelt by him when I placed the limpet mine and I did not see any burning mark.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any reason for you to look at his forehead when you placed the limpet mine?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson. I could recall it after the evidence that was led by Capt Prinsloo, that there was a mark on his forehead, but from my recollection I can recall that there was no such mark when I placed the limpet mine. It is not something that I pertinently observed.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, when was the first time when it became necessary for you to reconsider this detail? When did you go and think about this in detail, whether there was a mark and about the person's attitude or his body composure? When did this happen?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the wound I thought about after Capt Prinsloo's evidence was led and as to the rest, it was also, it was already part of my preparation.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the rest, what is the rest, is it where he stood leaning against the car?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I would have mentioned a drugged person who was not steady on his feet, leaning against the vehicle. I'm certain that I would have referred to that for the sake of completion.

ADV PRINSLOO: Then you are very thorough in your application.

Mr Goosen, this putting the finger into the eye, can you explain that to the Committee. Where did this happen and how did it happen.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, this happened after Mandla, a few minutes after Mandla had consumed the coke and he showed indications that he was losing his consciousness and he was unstable on his feet. Captain Prinsloo pressed him back into the boot of the Cressida, he placed so that he could swing his legs back into the vehicle and we were all standing at the rear of the vehicle and he pressed his finger into the eye of the person and he said he wanted to make sure that this person was not putting on.

ADV PRINSLOO: This was while he was lying in the dark boot that you see him pressing his finger into the eye?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you could see that in the dark, is that what you're telling the Committee?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether the Cressida had a light in the boot or not, I would have to speculate, but I would not recall this fact if I did not observe it.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you would not have had to speculate, you would have said that the Cressida's light was on, because I asked you if you could see in the dark, and now you come with this. Let us leave it there, we'll argue that.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, there was moonlight, there was other light, it was not so dark that you could not see your hand before your eyes. If a person bends down and someone presses his finger into his eye, one does not need a torch to see what's happening because it was only a metre or so from where I was standing.

ADV PRINSLOO: Within a minute and a half he became lifeless from this coke, after he had consumed it.

MR GOOSEN: In my document it says a minute or two. It could have been three, but it was very speedily.

CHAIRPERSON: In your viva voce you said it could be a minute to three minutes.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did he collapse there or what happened?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I have indicated in my documents he became unstable, upon which Capt Prinsloo pushed him back into the boot.

ADV PRINSLOO: What do you mean with unstable?

MR GOOSEN: His legs were wobbly and it was clear that his consciousness was affected by the coke.

ADV PRINSLOO: Like a person who fainted?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then Capt Prinsloo just loaded him back into the boot?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he didn't load him into it, he just pushed him back because he was already standing leaning against the boot. He pushed back the torso and lifted up the legs. It was not that he had to pick him up from the floor.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did Capt Prinsloo say what he did with the man?

MR GOOSEN: Afterwards from there, from the point where we departed, we did not discuss this person's condition, but Capt Prinsloo briefed us about the background of Mandla.

ADV PRINSLOO: So it was only after he was given this sub-stand and he almost fainted and was pushed back into the boot? Is that what you're saying?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, we did not discuss Mandla afterwards, what we discussed was Mandla's background and with what he was involved and the situation of Mandla who was on the point of being recruited as an informer and that this had failed and so forth. As I explained in my documents.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR MALAN: Was that the first time after he was placed back into the boot that you were briefed about Mandla?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: You were not on your way up to the place where you stopped told anything about Mandla?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And afterwards, before you drove, did Prinsloo tell you where he would drive to?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, already when we departed from the Compol building he said that the man was already in the vehicle and that we could move to Rustenburg. He then did not mention once again that we would move to Rustenburg, he already indicated that at the Compol building.

ADV PRINSLOO: How did you know where you were going to because you and Momberg would blow up the person? Which of the two of you would know this place where you were on your way to?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, what I can recall is that Capt Prinsloo made the proposal of the Rustenburg area and after we went through Rustenburg, Lt Momberg indicated that he was familiar with the area on the outside Rustenburg. But he will be able to testify as to how he became familiar with that area. And on his instruction we turned off this road where the body was destroyed or where the person was blown up.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, what is very strange is all these long stories. It was very easy for Capt Prinsloo to call you and Momberg and say meet me at the farm, there at Hammanskraal where he was and drive from there.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot talk on behalf of Capt Prinsloo as to why he did not call us to the farm.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I'm not certain whether I understood the question. For purpose of safety?

ADV PRINSLOO: It would have been more practical Honourable Chairperson, to say meet me at the farm and then we will drive directly to a place where we will do away with the person, because there was nobody on the farm, only him according to the version of Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: I don't understand the question because I was not aware firstly of the farm. I cannot speak or answer on behalf of Capt Prinsloo as to why he did not call us to the farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who proposed the place and on whose request was it that the place be looked for where you could eventually blow up this person?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, from my rusty recollection what I can recall here is that the Rustenburg area, there it was still Bophuthatswana area and most of these operations were executed in the then Bophuthatswana from an investigation point of view. And if we refer to Rustenburg, I assumed that it would be in the vicinity of Bophuthatswana. I would have not made the interpretation that it would have been in Rustenburg, I assumed that it would be in the adjacent Bophuthatswana area.

CHAIRPERSON: The question Mr Goosen, is who proposed the place where you were to execute your order?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I've already said, Capt Prinsloo said that we would move out to Rustenburg and after we moved through Rustenburg, Lt Momberg mentioned that he was familiar with this area and he indicated this specific road to Capt Prinsloo, where we executed this deed then.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, you say Capt Prinsloo spoke to you in The House of Coffees and said to you that this aspect of the coke and the stopping alongside the road and the striking with the spade and also the meeting at Compol you must leave out of your application, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did he propose this to you?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, what he had indeed done was that in general he made a proposal as to how the set-up and the run-up of this application should read without those details in there.

ADV PRINSLOO: But I would like to understand from you, because you place a dark picture before the Committee about Prinsloo, that he had influenced you, you wanted to influence you so much so that you immediately after went to your advocated. That is what you say.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I confirm those facts, I saw it as irregular influencing to diverge from the true version which I would state in my documents and that I was already busy drawing up. It was of great concern to me and that is why I immediately contacted my legal representative and informed him that this was the proposal to me.

ADV PRINSLOO: What is very strange Sir, is that Capt Prinsloo testified himself as to what you have spoken about now. If he wanted you to diverge from those points, then I do not understand you. And then I would like to put to you that you have a personal vendetta against him.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I have no personal vendetta against Prinsloo. On the contrary, after I had informed my legal representative of these facts, I think afterwards there were several attempts in trying to contact the applicant Prinsloo and Adv Prinsloo in order to see how this thing could be discussed and be solved, these differences which came to the fore at The House of Coffees.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well I am not a witness, but no-one ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The question here is Mr Goosen - may I interpose? The question is Mr Goosen, do you have a personal vendetta against Mr Prinsloo, yes or no?

MR GOOSEN: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Goosen, at that stage, if I understand you correctly, Prinsloo would have said that he was not even going to apply.

MR GOOSEN: I correct myself there, I said during our telephonic discussion he said he would not apply, but at the meeting at The House of Coffees he indicated that he would apply and he proposed that we would approach this from one legal camp.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo never knew what you said in your application, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct. I did not react to the proposals that Capt Prinsloo made. At that stage I was already with Weavind and Weavind and with Adv Alberts, I used my right to remain silent and I went back with these facts to my legal representatives. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

ADV PRINSLOO: And Mr Prinsloo did not even know about that, that you went to your legal representative?

MR GOOSEN: Well Chairperson, I would not have jumped up there and told them I was going to my advocate, I don't think that is my style.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose again, Mr Prinsloo.

But was Mr Prinsloo, the applicant, aware at the time of the meeting at The House of Coffees that you were busy preparing an amnesty application?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that is correct. During the initial telephonic discussion I indicated to him that I was in the process of applying and that I would be applying and I will make use of the opportunity that the TRC has placed before us and I will actively participate in this process.

ADV PRINSLOO: But at no stage did you afterwards tell Prinsloo what you said in your application, am I correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, I did not tell him, but we repetitively tried to contact Capt Prinsloo, so that I could give him a copy of my documents.

ADV PRINSLOO: But why did you want to contact him, he wanted to intimidate you and influence you according to your version?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was obvious that there was a conflict of interest in the end with the Committee, and I wanted to avoid that at all costs. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

ADV PRINSLOO: So this small aspect, the meeting at Compol, which does not affect the essence of this application and The House of Coffees story afterwards? Is that all?

MR GOOSEN: No, it is about the truth, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: I am not an applicant here, but you did not approach me, I can assure you of that.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, messages were left at the advocate's office.

ADV PRINSLOO: When you took the person away from there and arrived there at Rustenburg where he would be blown up, did you have a look whether he was still alive or not?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I've already said that I did not look after he was taken out of the boot and dragged away. At that stage I started the preparation of the explosive device along with Lt Momberg and during the same period of time when that happened he was struck a few times with the spade and I went back and he was lying on his side and I placed the explosive device on him without determining whether he was alive or not.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen - I beg your pardon, Mr Prinsloo.

We have the problem here that you are asked a question and then you answer the question but you give three different stories. So let us just save time please, just answer the question.

MR GOOSEN: No, I did not determine whether the person was still alive or not.

ADV PRINSLOO: This was when Mr Prinsloo fetched the spade, what did you think he was going to do with that, because you were preparing an explosive device?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I have said, after he dragged the person away he returned to the vehicle and he informed, or he made a remark that he wanted to ensure that this person does not move and jeopardise the placing of the explosive device in order to destroy identification.

ADV PRINSLOO: You know what Mr Prinsloo's version is of this, I will not put it to you.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: One moment's indulgence, Honourable Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, what was your opinion or viewpoint while you were busy with the explosive device and the body? Did it move, or what did you see there?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, is this with regard to the body or the explosive device?

ADV MOTATA: With regard to the explosive device.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after the thing was connected I took it to the person and I placed it on top and underneath the person.

ADV MOTATA: No, while you were busy working with the body did you see any signs of life?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I did not see any signs of life and I also did not feel for a pulse, but he was lying there lifeless and he had cuts on his head from being struck with the spade.

ADV MOTATA: Would this have jeopardised your work if the person was not neutralised?

MNR GOOSEN: "Sou die persoon nie geneutraliseer was(sic) nie"?

ADV MOTATA: Would this jeopardise your work if he was not struck with the spade?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot comment as to which or what was in the coke, but if we look at the circumstances whatever was in the coke would not have been poison, it would have been a tranquilliser. So the method of further neutralisation was the spade. That is how I summarised it there when the spade came about there.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

That place where the explosion took place, were there any bushes there or was it a bare terrain? What was the situation?

MR GOOSEN: In terms of my recollection we turned off from the tar road to the left. There was a farm road, it was not an even road, there were still grass clumps in the middleman of the road. One could describe this as overgrazed ground. It was an open surface because we drove in. If one took the direction from East to West and where we drove, we turned around so that the nose of the vehicle could point back in the direction of the road. In other words there was enough room there to turn the vehicle.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard what ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Were there any bushed around the place?

MR GOOSEN: Not that I can recall.

ADV PRINSLOO: You heard what Mr Prinsloo said about this.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any other residential area in the vicinity which was situated on a high level?

MR GOOSEN: Not that I can recall.

ADV PRINSLOO: Could there have been?

MR GOOSEN: As far as I recall it was dark, so I doubt that there was any kind of residential area in the vicinity. We would have risked launching such an operation in such a high risk area.

ADV PRINSLOO: And according to you there were three marks on the back of the victim's head.

MR GOOSEN: I did not mention any specific number of lesions, I saw that there were marks. There may have been two or three marks, but I did see wounds on the back of the person's head.

ADV PRINSLOO: But in that darkness you saw the marks on this person's head.

MR GOOSEN: Well I was kneeled practically next to the person.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well then how could you observe any wounds if you were busy setting a dangerous explosive device and ensuring that this device was placed properly and that it would go off at the right time? How while you were busy with this would you be able to observe any marks? And you knew that the person had been hit with the spade.

MR GOOSEN: I prepared the explosive device at the left back door of the vehicle, the door was open and the inside lights were on. I used that light to prepare the device, then I took the device two or three metres away from the vehicle to the person and placed the device on the head and the hips and the feet of the person and then I also placed part of the device on the other side of the person near his head and his hands and his feet. There was moonlight, I didn't need any extra light. It was sufficient light in which to manage such an operation.

ADV PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence please.

Honourable Chairperson, I will not repeat Mr Prinsloo's evidence and make any statements, I accept that his evidence is on record. Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one or maybe two.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we hold onto the number you've just stated? - if you should exceed that number.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: You know me too well.

Mr Goosen, I would just like some confirmation regarding certain aspects. You have studied Brig Cronje's application, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And is there anything therein which differs from your version or do you concur with it?

MR GOOSEN: I concur with it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you also heard that during cross-examination I put it to Mr Prinsloo that you and Mr Momberg were the demolitions experts for the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, among others we were some of the demolitions experts. There were others as well.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then finally I would just like to ask you about your experience when you were involved in an operation, whether it be legal or illegal and experience this situation which was unforeseen. What would the general practice be, would the general practice be to stop immediately and to return to head office and to consult Brig Cronje about what you were supposed to do now, or would the regular practice have been to handle the situation there on ground level as it appeared?

MR GOOSEN: I assume that the situation had to be dealt with on the ground level by the commanding officer.

MR DU PLESSIS: And why I ask you this is because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, without interfering with your line of cross-examination, isn't Mr Goosen's evidence simply that once he received the order from Brig Cronje, he then fell under the direct command of Mr Prinsloo?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes. Yes, I'm just alluding to the normal practice so as to be able to argue if it is at all necessary ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary?

MR DU PLESSIS: ... for me to argue that, about the normal practice, Chairperson. I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

I have listened to your evidence Mr Goosen, with regard to this person who was in the boot of the vehicle and where you stopped there under the bridge on the double carriageway near Rustenburg, or was it the highway, and please tell me if I misunderstand your evidence, but it would appear as if the man was standing there quite normally and you observed him quite thoroughly, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: My observation was that nothing was wrong with the person, he was somewhat - he appeared normal to me, he did not appear to be dizzy or anything like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you really expect that somebody who had been burnt with a burning log, especially if one accepts, as I page through the documents, that this man had been burnt on his anus between the buttocks, would you expect that any such person would be able to stand normally, or don't you think he would have been in a lot of pain?

MR GOOSEN: Firstly, I was unaware of the fact that this person had been assaulted and burnt with logs. I was unaware of that fact. Secondly, I would assume that if he had been burnt he would show signs of pain. I'm sure that that would be normal. But that if he had been given some or other pain killer, he would not necessarily display signs of discomfort.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also put it to you that Mr Kruger, my client, who was not at all involved in the arrest or the interrogation, has only one share in this incident and that was to guard the man. And he will state that he definitely had a burn mark on his forehead and between his buttocks and that he himself, Mr Kruger, applied ointment to the mark on the forehead and the mark between the buttocks. Therefore I put it to you that your evidence cannot be correct and that it would have been impossible for you to undertake such observation in the dark. Anything to say?

MR GOOSEN: The light with regard to the stopping point and the point where we committed the act was sufficient enough to be able to make certain observations, such as the pressing of the finger into the eye. I did not see any burn mark on the forehead of this person, neither at the stopping point nor at the point where he lay in a lifeless state as we placed the mini-limpet mine on his head.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are very ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Ms van der Walt.

Mr Goosen, I am afraid that this matter may repeat itself perpetually. You saw the person laying on his side, you placed some of the mines on top and below him. If the burn mark was on the down side, would you have been able to see it? Is it your evidence that you checked and that you saw that there was no burn mark, or is it simply that you didn't see anything?

MR GOOSEN: I did not observe it because I was not being attentive to anything like that.

MR MALAN: Would you dispute that there was a burn mark on the forehead?

MR GOOSEN: No, I would not dispute it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I have nothing further. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no question, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden, for the victims?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, we take it that you are not bold enough to wish to re-examine.

MR ALBERTS: I have no re-examination, Madam Chair, but Mr Goosen has just mentioned to me that he would like to add something to his evidence and he's indicated that it's addressed to the family of Mr Mbizana, who are evidently present here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he may proceed to do so.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would just like say to the family of Mandla, as I knew him, that the clock cannot be turned back and that which has taken place I cannot change personally. I would like to seek forgiveness for my share and the role which I played in the killing then of Mandla, and I hope that my version will contribute to sketching the truth to you of how he met his demise.

I thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Goosen, you are hereby excused as a witness.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: With your guidance, may I suggest that this be an appropriate time to adjourn and that we resume at quarter past one. Will that be too short a period? May we then resume at half past one. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the next applicant Mr Momberg?

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct, Madam Chair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------WILLEM JOHANNES MOMBERG: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Mr Momberg, your application is embodied on volume 2, the introduction from page 2 to 32, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: And the incident is contained from page 32, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Do you confirm that?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: You have also heard the evidence and the application of Mr Goosen, do you confirm that inasfar as it has regard to you?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: Just another aspect. It would seem as if after the deceased, Mr Goosen and Mr Prinsloo went through Rustenburg, you indicate the place where the detonation will take place.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: Would you please explain to the Committee how it happened.

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, through the nature of my work and with reference to a previous application of mine to this Committee, the McKenzie application, I used this road every second weekend for three years, between two and three years, and from a reconnaissance view I knew this place quite well and I knew where there were places which were remote and uninhabited and places where people lived.

MR BOTHA: And this is the reason why you knew of this specific place.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that end your evidence-in-chief?

MR BOTHA: That does end it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mnr Momberg, Mr Prinsloo is well known to you?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you knew Mr Prinsloo as a person who was dedicated in his investigation work.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And insofar as you know this place where this person was eventually blown up, was this also well know to you?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: So you would indicate this place to Mr Prinsloo because you had that knowledge and not him.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was no secret between yourself and Mr Prinsloo that you would blow up this person?

MR MOMBERG: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the purpose Mr Momberg, was to - as Mr Prinsloo had already testified, this person was a well trained person and that it was in the interest of the country that he be blown up?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you did not do it for any other reason other than that?

MR MOMBERG: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: It was not for any personal gain or out of malice?

MR MOMBERG: None whatsoever, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you agree that this person was alive and he was immobilised in some manner and thereafter he was taken and executed and blown up?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your version, Mr Momberg, was he unconscious, alive, or can you not say? - when he was blown up.

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I did not inspect any closer before we blew him up to determine whether he was alive, unconscious or dead.

MR PRINSLOO: And you did not look for any injuries?

MR MOMBERG: No, I did not look for any injuries, but I did note some injuries to his head when we placed the explosives.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, is that injury where you stood under the bridge there?

MR MOMBERG: No, I speak of at the scene of the explosion scene, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Let us not misunderstand each other. There at the bridge did you see any injuries to him?

MR MOMBERG: None, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You have already heard that there was a burn mark on his forehead.

MR MOMBERG: I've heard the evidence here, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it possible that he did indeed have a burn mark and you did not see it?

MR MOMBERG: It is possible, Chairperson. I can only repeat that I did not see any injury.

MR PRINSLOO: And you would also not be able to dispute that Mr Prinsloo had beforehand given him sleeping tablets as he has testified?

MR MOMBERG: No, I cannot, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And insofar as this specific incident is concerned, can you pertinently recall this detail that you met Mr Prinsloo at Compol and not on the road as he has testified, or can you be mistaken?

MR MOMBERG: I am entirely convinced that we met at Compol, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Why are you so convinced, Mr Momberg?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, purely for the reason that from there we moved with one vehicle and we would not have taken on that road with two vehicles.

MR PRINSLOO: But according to the evidence, at some stage you must have driven in one vehicle.

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, from Compol we drove in one vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: According to the evidence which was placed before this Committee, Brig Cronje gave certain instructions. Was it given to you or to Goosen, who was it originally given to?

MR MOMBERG: The instruction was given to me personally. According to what I heard later the instruction was given just before that to Goosen as well, so the instruction was given to us separately.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did Brig Cronje give you this instruction?

MR MOMBERG: In his office in the Compol building, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: How long was this before you saw Capt Prinsloo?

MR MOMBERG: Approximately two days.

MR PRINSLOO: What did Brig Cronje tell you?

MR MOMBERG: Brig Cronje instructed me to assist Sgt Goosen and Capt Prinsloo with the operation in the disposal of a corpse.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Brig Cronje tell you what was expected of you?

MR MOMBERG: Negative, Chairperson, he only said that I had to assist them.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you understand from that, what did you have to do by assisting them?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I accepted that the further particulars will be provided by Capt Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Brig Cronje tell you why you had to participate in this operation?

MR MOMBERG: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: So at that stage you did not know that you were to blow up a corpse.

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, as I have already said, Brig Cronje's instruction was that I was to assist with the disposal of a corpse. I assumed that this entailed blowing up or whatever it might entail.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you think it was blowing up?

MR MOMBERG: Because it was my field of experience, I was a trained explosives expert.

MR PRINSLOO: But there are many other manners in which one can dispose of a corpse.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: So you just drew that inference?

MR MOMBERG: As I have already said, Chairperson, it is my field of experience and I accepted that that is what Brig Cronje had in mind.

MR PRINSLOO: There was a good relationship between yourself and Brig Cronje.

MR MOMBERG: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was previously a family relation.

MR MOMBERG: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you at any time at a later stage report back to Brig Cronje and tell him that what you had to do along with Prinsloo was not to blow up a corpse but was to immobilise a person and blow him up?

MR MOMBERG: No, I did not give any feedback to him, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Why not, Mr Momberg?

MR MOMBERG: It was not my task, Chairperson, it was the senior member of the operation's task to give feedback.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Momberg, there was a personal relationship between yourself and Mr Cronje at that stage, was it not strange to you that you had an instruction to blow up a corpse and afterwards it went different?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, in an operation nothing goes according to plan and one makes plans on grassroots level.

MR PRINSLOO: When for the first time was it necessary for you to call up these events as it had happened in your mind?

MR MOMBERG: During my application for amnesty, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And was that the first time?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And this was with your fellow applicant, Mr Goosen?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And in this aspect you spoke to your former Commander, Brig Cronje?

MR MOMBERG: No, Chairperson, with regard to this specific incident I personally much later had contact with Brig Cronje.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have contact with him before you handed your application in?

MR MOMBERG: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: When in this regard did you have contact with him?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, for the first time when we appeared here with regard to other incidents I saw Cronje for the first time in a very long time, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard the version of Mr Prinsloo where he differs from you.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the only aspects where you differ from him is the fact where you had met and then what had happened along the road, administering the sleeping tablets and the manner in which he was hit or struck with the spade?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, inherently I differ from Mr Goosen as to where we met. I stand by the fact that it was by the Compol building ...(intervention)

ADV MOTATA: Prinsloo.

MR MOMBERG: Oh I beg your pardon, Prinsloo. ... and that we had stopped on the road between Britz and Rustenburg where the coca cola was drunk and with regard to the spade episode, where the person was struck by Prinsloo with a spade.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you say of the spade incident? What is your evidence?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, while Goosen and I were busy with the final preparations of the explosive device, Prinsloo removed the spade from the boot of the vehicle and struck Mandla two or three times with the sharp edge of the spade on the head.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see him striking him with the sharp edge of the spade?

MR MOMBERG: I looked around when the first blow fell and I saw the consequent two blows.

MR PRINSLOO: You say that you were assisting Goosen with the final preparations of the explosive device. Would you want to tell me that both of you worked on the preparation of the explosive device?

MR MOMBERG: That is not what I'm saying.

MR PRINSLOO: So what are you saying?

MR MOMBERG: The explosive device was already prepared, it was six mini-limpet mines which were attached to each other with detonators. With regard to the final preparation it was on the correct sorting out of the limpet mine. In the process of packaging in the limpet mines into the bag the wires became entangled and it had to be untangled and thereafter Goosen had to attach the detonator and from there onwards he would work alone with the explosives.

MR PRINSLOO: So at which stage did Prinsloo strike the man with the spade?

MR MOMBERG: While we were busy with the explosives.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you and Goosen of assistance in the removal of the body from the boot?

MR MOMBERG: Right at the beginning I assisted in the removal of the body from the boot, thereafter I had no contact with the deceased except to help Goosen with the placing.

MR PRINSLOO: So you had to have someone there to place him on the explosives, who took the body there?

MR MOMBERG: Prinsloo dragged the body there.

MR PRINSLOO: So he would know where the place was where he wanted to blow it up?

MR MOMBERG: He could see where we were busy, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Were there bushes there?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, not bushes as such, it is barren overgrazed land.

MR PRINSLOO: So are you saying there was no long grass?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson, it was bare overgrazed land.

MR PRINSLOO: Bare, bare grass?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, bare overgrazed ground, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And was it safe to have such a bare, bare place?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, that is why I chose the place, Chairperson. Initially I would not have considered causing an explosion in long grass because it could cause a veld fire, and at that stage it was not dangerous there because there was no residential are any closer.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Momberg, this driving to Rustenburg, was it your idea?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, no, the course to Rustenburg was Capt Prinsloo's idea.

MR PRINSLOO: But how did he know that you would be in a place where you regularly moved?

MR MOMBERG: Capt Prinsloo was aware of the fact that with the handling of McKenzie I had regularly used that exact route to Kopfontein - it has got another name now, Klokweng border post, and that I knew that area quite well.

MR PRINSLOO: One moment please, Chairperson.

This McKenzie that you refer to, was this an informer that you dealt with?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So how would Mr Prinsloo have known about an informer that you were dealing with, because this would have been done in secret?

MR MOMBERG: By nature of the activities of Capt Prinsloo's unit, all reports that I gathered from McKenzie would be sent through to him in a processed form.

MR PRINSLOO: And the fact that you were driving that route, would that appear in the report?

MR MOMBERG: Any normal person would have been able to infer it.

MR PRINSLOO: Does it appear in the report, Mr Momberg?

MR MOMBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Does it appear there written "This is the route that I drive every day to McKenzie"?

MR MOMBERG: No, but mention is made of the border post.

MR PRINSLOO: But that does not indicate that this is the route that you were driving, Mr Momberg, with all respect. Is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, there were a limited number of routes that one could follow to the border post.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it your evidence that you climbed into the vehicle at Compol, drove with Mr Prinsloo on a road which appeared to be the Rustenburg road, stopped under a bridge and then the coke story ensued and from that point onwards you drove again to Rustenburg without offering any input or finding out what was going on? Is that your evidence?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, with regard to the direction of Rustenburg, you must remember that there was a great proportion of the former homeland Bophuthatswana, in the Rustenburg environment and that most of the clandestine operations that we launched were launched in Bophuthatswana territory and therefore it wasn't strange to me that we were going into that territory.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Momberg, did you climb into your vehicle at Compol without any prior discussion and simply drive with this man, Mr Prinsloo? Is that what you're saying?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, that is correct. I did not question him, I knew what we were going to do. My order was clear, the order was to destroy a corpse. I knew that Capt Prinsloo would have a general idea or a precise idea of what was going to happen. It was also not the custom to discuss these things.

MR PRINSLOO: Well with the exception of custom, did you not discuss any of these matters whatsoever?

MR MOMBERG: The only thing that we discussed before we stopped on the Britz/Rustenburg road, was that this person was already in the boot of the vehicle and we also discussed whether all our things were ready in order to continue with the operation.

MR PRINSLOO: Wasn't it said to you that this man was simply tranquillised, that he had taken sleeping tablets?

MR MOMBERG: No. The first time that we became aware of the fact that he was still alive was when we stopped on the Britz/Rustenburg road.

MR PRINSLOO: Then for what reason would Prinsloo open the boot on the road there if he was in the boot, for which reason?

MR MOMBERG: The only reason that I can think of is to give the coca cola to the man so that the drugs could take effect.

MR PRINSLOO: But he was already in the boot, he had already taken some of these sleeping tablets. For what reason did he open the boot then?

MR MOMBERG: I cannot speak on behalf of Capt Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: But then you saw to your amazement that there was a living person in the boot.

MR MOMBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ask him what was going on?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I accepted that my order was to destroy a corpse, I saw the man and I was surprised. I may use the phrase, I didn't make much of an issue about it because I knew that at one or other point during the evening the man would become a corpse in any case.

MR PRINSLOO: And you associated yourself with it?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, I associated myself with it.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know at that stage what Brig Cronje had told you, that this would serve a legal purpose which would form part of your express or implied authority within the context of the events of that time?

MR MOMBERG: I can only reiterate that my order from Brig Cronje was to assist Capt Prinsloo in getting rid of a body. Subsequent to that, when we pulled away after the man had received the coke at the point where we stopped, Capt Prinsloo informed us about who and what the man was and what he had been involved in, and I associated myself with the fact that he was a dangerous terrorist and that he had to be eliminated.

MR PRINSLOO: This was after he received the coke?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I am not going to put the evidence of Prinsloo once again because it is already on record. I have nothing further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it, Mr Botha, you have no re-exam?

MR BOTHA: No re-examination, thank you.

MR JANSEN: I also have no ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen? Sorry about that.

MR JANSEN: I don't have any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Momberg, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, who is the next applicant?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson, the next applicant is Mr Strydom. You will find his application on page - the pages are quite strangely numbered I must say, but it starts on page 422, the facts of this specific matter in his application.

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle 1?

MR DU PLESSIS: Bundle 1, yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------JOHANNES JAKOBUS STRYDOM: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, do you confirm the correctness of your application? The pages are a bit jumbled, but your application commences on page 421, 422, 423 up to page 429. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Those are the page numbers in bundle 1.  Very well. Then if we go over to page 422 and 423 where the particulars of this incident of Mandla appears, do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I would just like to question you about a few aspects in order to clarify what you say in your application. What was your rank at that stage?

MR STRYDOM: I was a Warrant Officer.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in which unit were you?

MR STRYDOM: Unit C, at Compol building.

MR DU PLESSIS: And who was your commander at Unit C?

MR STRYDOM: Capt Hendrik Prinsloo.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Capt Crafford, what was his position?

MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford at that stage was the commander.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Capt Prinsloo was also your commander?

MR STRYDOM: He was also my commander, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who was the senior man, Crafford or Prinsloo?

MR STRYDOM: Crafford was the senior man.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Strydom, how many times were you involved in the interrogation of Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: As far as I recall, only once.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And who was present during the interrogation, can you recall? You say in the second paragraph, you refer to Capt Sakkie Crafford and black members, can you recall who the black members were?

MR STRYDOM: It was Capt Sakkie Crafford and black members, Jerry and Smuts. There were others, but I cannot recall their names.

MR DU PLESSIS: And were you aware of the subject matter of the interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I was.

MR DU PLESSIS: You have read the application of Capt Crafford.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have seen what information was available there from Mandla.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You will find that on page 496, Chairperson, 496 and 495.

And you refer in paragraph 2 to shifts of interrogation. Let us just clear this up, were there specific regular shifts which the various divisions had undertaken, or what did you mean by that?

MR STRYDOM: I can specifically recall that I and Capt Sakkie Crafford one afternoon undertook the interrogation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what I mean is, were there regular shifts? Would you for example every afternoon between two and four, interrogate the man?

MR STRYDOM: No, for sure not, it was different times.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you ever present where Capt Prinsloo undertook the interrogation of Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: You are saying that you were only present that specific one time to which you refer.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, with Capt Crafford.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you are saying in the second paragraph that at some stage you drove, you left the activist in the care of the black members and when you returned at 10 o'clock that evening you found him hanging from a tree.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could you please explain how he was tied to the tree.

MR STRYDOM: He was tied to the tree by his hands and he was on his feet, he hung.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did he hang upside down?

MR STRYDOM: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And his feet were not hanging in the air, or he was not hanging in some funny fashion?

MR STRYDOM: No, his feet were not away from the ground.

MR DU PLESSIS: You say he was then already assaulted by the black members.

MR STRYDOM: It seemed to me so.

MR MALAN: Did you say his feet touched the ground?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR MALAN: So he was just tied up?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: He could have stood if he wanted to?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, he could.

MR MALAN: But he was hanging.

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you refer in your last sentence to a funny name, Myali, should that be Mtjali?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that has to be Mtjali.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then in the third paragraph you say Capt Crafford took his pistol and held the barrel up in the air and pulled the trigger until the magazine was empty.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you struck him with a soda water bottle.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you get any information from him of any value during this assault and interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: No, we did not obtain any further information from him because from the questions that Sakkie Crafford put to him there was no significant information which we obtained from him.

MR DU PLESSIS: You have seen in Capt Crafford's application on page 497 - you do not have to page there, he says that he, Crafford, burnt Mandla with a log.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was this at the same time when he fired with a pistol and you struck him with the bottle?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was there anybody else who burnt him, anybody but Capt Crafford, who burnt him with a log?

MR STRYDOM: Not as far as I can recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: And at that stage when you did these things and the pistol was fired and the bottle was used and he was burnt with the log, was Mandla cooperating or was he not cooperating?

MR STRYDOM: He did not offer any cooperation.

MR DU PLESSIS: What was the purpose of these actions?

MR STRYDOM: To intimidate him and to break his moral.

MR DU PLESSIS: At a stage he was unconscious and he had several wounds to his head.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you are saying in the laster sentence -

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: When did he do this, after he was struck with the bottle, before he was struck with bottle, after he was burnt, before he was burnt, when did he do this?

MR STRYDOM: After he was assaulted and burnt and struck with the bottle.

MR DU PLESSIS: One of the other applicants, I think Mr Mathebula, says in his application that he was tied to a water tank. Can you recall that you read that?

MR STRYDOM: I read that.

MR DU PLESSIS: What do you say about that?

MR STRYDOM: That is not correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then he says that you were also responsible for burning Mandla with the log.

MR STRYDOM: That is not correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You say that Capt Crafford said in his application on page 497, that he Capt Crafford was the one who burnt him with the burning log.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And that is how you recall it?

MR STRYDOM: That is how I recall it, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Strydom, what the purpose of the interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: To obtain information with regard to the incidents that had been mentioned already.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then in the last paragraph you say you went home and the following day you went back there. Why did you do that?

MR STRYDOM: I wanted to return to see how it was with Mandla.

MR DU PLESSIS: What happened when you arrived there?

MR STRYDOM: When I arrived there I found Capt Prinsloo there.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what did he tell you?

MR STRYDOM: He was upset because of the assault. I did not want to argue further with him and I climbed into my car and went back home.

MR DU PLESSIS: And were you afterwards sent on an operation to Swaziland?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Sakkie Crafford and I.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know whether this was this was before the interrogation of Mandla had ceased, or do you not know?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was it shortly after this Sunday?

MR STRYDOM: It was shortly after that Sunday.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Strydom, you have now confirmed the other pages with regard to the political objective and everything with regard to that, is there anything else that you would like to tell the Committee about the TRC process, and to the family with regard to this incident?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you please continue.

MR STRYDOM: It has been many years that this thing has been eating away at me and I have had many sleepless nights up to now. And from my heart I would like to apologise to the family members and say how sorry I am and I hope that they will forgive me for this assault and for the death of Mandla, which ensued because of this assault. Thank you very much, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I neglected to ask one question. May I just deal with that please.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may.

MR DU PLESSIS: You will see on page 421, application was not made for murder. However, during my consultation with Mr Strydom I asked him a specific question and that question made me reconsider my position and I'm going to apply on the basis of what he told me - I'm going to ask him the question now, for murder and then I will argue it and leave it in the Committee's hands.

Mr Strydom, when the interrogation took place, did the idea emanate by you that Mandla, because of the interrogation and the assaults, could die?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I did think about it and I foresaw that he could have died because of the assault.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well.

Madam Chair, I will leave it for argument, the whole question surrounding actions and where the eventual cause of the death is different from the actions, but the actions could have caused the death. It's that whole difficult argument, but I will ask leave to amend page 421 to include an application for murder. Thank you. I have no ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: May I just make sure at this point ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I was going to suggest, Mr du Plessis, that we will respond to that once we have heard your argument.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, if the Committee finds that this evidence is not enough to prove murder in dolus eventualis, then I'm in your hands. But I will leave it for argument, that's the only basis for that application which I've made.

CHAIRPERSON: We note that you intend to make such an application during argument.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, thank you Chairperson.

MR MALAN: On this point, may I just follow it up. When you spoke to the family you asked for forgiveness for the assault and the consequent death. Do you ask that - I ask this on the same background as on the request of your legal representative. Did you think that his death could follow on a basis of a necessity because of the nature of the assault? Is that what you're trying to tell the family or not?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So you thought that he would be assaulted in such a manner that they would murder him because they could not release him?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Because that is what I am hearing you saying to the family. And then an immediate follow-up question in my mind is why do you think he was killed?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, because I never saw him again after that Sunday.

MR MALAN: Very well. I think my question was misunderstood, but I will leave it there. Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, I have no questions, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen - or Mr Botha first?

MR BOTHA: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Strydom, with which of the black members of Unit C did you usually work?

MR STRYDOM: Along with Mtjali, he usually worked with me.

MR JANSEN: Mr Matjeni whom I represent says he usually worked in a group with Mr Dos Santos. Does that concur with your recollection?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: At the stage when these incidents took place, could one assume that the last thing that came to your mind was that you would 10 years later have to recall these incidents and that you'd have to give evidence about it?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: So would you then accept that when I put to you that one has to leave room that you might be mistaken in the events?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is possible, I may err.

MR JANSEN: Because you know for example that Mr Jerry Matjeni denies that he was in any way involved in the assault or in an assault of Mr Mbizana.

MR STRYDOM: It is possible that he may not have been involved.

MR JANSEN: I say this with reference to that sentence on page 422, the final part of that paragraph where he(sic) says -

... and directly afterwards -

Would you concede that insofar as you implicate Mr Mtjali in an assault, you may be mistaken in your recollection?

MR STRYDOM: It is possible yes, that I may be mistaken, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: May I find out, Mr Strydom, how you can be mistaken about the identity of the persons that you've indicated to have been Jerry and Mtjali as having been involved in the assault on Mandla at approximately 10 hours at night when you came back and found him hanging on the tree? How is it possible that you can be mistaken with regard to the identity of the black members that were responsible for his assault?

MR STRYDOM: The possibility exists because it has been 16 years and the names confused me, or it could have confused me, that I cannot recall all the names.

CHAIRPERSON: How long had you worked with Mr Matjeni and Mr Mtjali, prior to this incident?

MR STRYDOM: I worked along with Mr Mtjali for many years, it can be 15 years. And Jerry I only knew from 1985 up until my retirement in 1992.

CHAIRPERSON: So at the time of this incident you knew both men reasonably well?

MR STRYDOM: I beg your pardon, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: At the time of the occurrence of this incident you knew both men reasonably well.

MR STRYDOM: That's right, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: And this is my difficulty. Where is there room for confusion?

MR STRYDOM: Well it's nearly 16 years ago that this thing happened, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You can speak to me in Afrikaans.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you very much. It has been more than 16 years and I cannot recall the names of the persons present there. It may have confused me entirely, the names.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know of any other black members who were part of the interrogation of Mr Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall. I don't know of any names that were present.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall whether Jerry and Mtjali were part of Mandla's interrogation at any stage?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that would be the interrogation session where you participated in his interrogation.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You only participated in one such session.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that session followed after you had found Mandla hanging from the tree.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, you have heard the evidence of Mr Prinsloo and that is that he had already spoken to Brig Cronje before he discovered that the person, the deceased, Mandla, had been assaulted. Do you agree with that?

MR STRYDOM: I agree, yes, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have also testified that Mr Prinsloo admonished you and was very angry with regard to this specific incident, that Mandla was interrogated and assaulted.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, it is so that Capt Prinsloo was the appointed person who specifically investigated matters at the branch ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Honourable Chairperson, I want to object against the previous question. The previous question to Mr Strydom I think was a bit misleading. The previous question related to the fact that Mr Prinsloo alleged that Mr Strydom testified that his client, Mr Prinsloo, was unhappy that an interrogation took place firstly and secondly, that there was an assault. That was the basis of the question. Now as I understood I object against that because as I understood his evidence-in-chief, that wasn't his evidence-in-chief, his evidence-in-chief was that Prinsloo wasn't happy with the assault and not necessarily the interrogation itself as well.

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I did not think that the witness misunderstood me, but let it remain there.

MR DU PLESSIS: But my objection is against my learned friend putting evidence to the witness which wasn't his evidence, as if it was his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence only related to the assault.

MR DU PLESSIS: Ja.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, was Mr Prinsloo tasked and satisfied that you questioned Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: He did not have any objection, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, why did you want to question him? You did not arrest him, you were not involved in the investigation, so on which grounds would you interrogate him?

MR STRYDOM: I was in the presence of Capt Crafford, Chairperson, and I acted under his instruction.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you and Mr Crafford know of the facts with regard to Mr Mandla? In order to question him, what did you know?

MR STRYDOM: Crafford knew everything, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying that he was tasked with this investigation of Obet Masina and this Justice Mandla? Is this what you are telling the Committee?

MR STRYDOM: "Ek was gemoeid gewees met die ondersoek van Obet Masina, ja". ...(no English interpretation)

MR PRINSLOO: I want to put it to you that Mr Crafford did not help in any input in the investigation. Do you want to comment on that?

MR STRYDOM: No, comment, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Which facts did you know about in order to question Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: I had the fact of the bomb explosion in front of Checkers in Silverton.

MR PRINSLOO: So the only thing you could ask him was whether he placed a bomb in a refuse bin in front of Checkers?

MR STRYDOM: And I had information about the murder of a municipal policeman in Mamelodi.

MR PRINSLOO: Which policeman was this?

MR STRYDOM: He was guarding a house and a handgrenade was thrown into the house and he was killed.

MR PRINSLOO: One moment please, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May I find out Mr Strydom, how did you come to know of these facts on which you based your interrogation of Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot hear the question properly, Chairperson, my hearing isn't of the best.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that you questioned Mandla on the basis of certain information which you knew, and I want to know how did you come to know of the facts on which you questioned him on.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, every morning in the office we had a conference among out members and it was common knowledge in the office that this specific Mandla had been arrested and the reason for his arrest as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you wish me to repeat my question, Mr Strydom?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, please.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you come to know of the facts on which you based your interrogation of Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford was the interrogator at that stage and I received my information from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he the one who was putting questions to Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was your role during the interrogation of Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: I was supposed to take notes of the questions and the answers.

CHAIRPERSON: During his interrogation did you assault him?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I assaulted him during the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Prinsloo, I'm sorry to have interfered with your cross-examination.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, you say that notes were taken during the interrogation, what became of those notes, who received those notes?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall where those notes went. I don't know what Capt Crafford did with the notes.

MR PRINSLOO: But those notes never reached Capt Prinsloo, I will put it to you.

MR STRYDOM: That may be so, but Capt Crafford handled it and I don't know what he did with it.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say that you were divided into shifts when it came to interrogating this person, is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Who divided you into shifts?

MR STRYDOM: It could have been Capt Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Well Capt Prinsloo - have you heard his evidence and what his modus operandi was and what his specific method of investigation was? And you knew him quite well to know that he would not drag others into his interrogation process, is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: It may be correct, but with regard to that specific case, it was not so.

MR PRINSLOO: And you know how precise he was with his interrogations as well as the presentation of evidence.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I know him to be like that.

MR PRINSLOO: And that one would not deal lightly with a person and simply obtain information in that way and then use the information for Court purposes.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I ask where this is leading? Is my learned friend disputing the fact that this interrogation took place, that Capt Crafford was involved in the interrogation with Mr Strydom, or what is the purpose of this?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure Mr du Plessis, we'll soon learn from Mr Prinsloo where he is heading to.

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, the witness has just stated that Prinsloo told him to undertake the interrogation and he did not do it. I've already put it to him, and that was the reason for it. Crafford had given the man an order to interrogate, that Prinsloo was not aware of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that's his evidence, Mr Prinsloo, his evidence is that he was tasked not by Prinsloo, but by Mr Crafford and that Mr Prinsloo might have divided them into shifts.

MR PRINSLOO: Unless I misunderstood him Madam Chair, I understood him to say explicitly that Prinsloo instructed him to do the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it was Crafford who instructed him to do the interrogation and he did the interrogation in the presence of Crafford, and his role was merely to take notes during Crafford's interrogation.

ADV MOTATA: And upon your question is that "Mr Prinsloo was not upset that we had interrogated him".

MR MALAN: Just to come to the aid of Mr Prinsloo, my notes indicate that after he said Crafford, you asked him whether Prinsloo had divided them into shifts and he stated that it could have been Prinsloo, but he did not say that he gave the order. I think that is where the confusion ensued.

MR PRINSLOO: Then just for clarity's sake Mr Strydom, Mr Prinsloo did not divide you into shifts with regard to the interrogation, is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: That may be correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And the purpose with which you were gathered there on the farm, was not for you to interrogate Mbizana, it was that from that point you would undertake certain work, as per Prinsloo's evidence. Is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: No, Sakkie Crafford and I worked together at that stage and he undertook the interrogation of Mandla.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying that the explicit purpose of why you were on that farm was to interrogate Mbizana?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe how you have phrased your question might actually be very confusing to Mr Strydom.

Mr Strydom, what is being sought from you by Mr Prinsloo is to find out why were you on the farm, what was the reason for you being on the farm during that period? Was it to exclusively interrogate Mandla or were you there for other purposes?

MR STRYDOM: I was exclusively there in the company of Capt Crafford because he, Crafford, interrogated the man and I took the notes for Crafford, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

So did Capt Crafford give you the order to go to the farm with the purposes of interrogating Mbizana? Is that what you say

MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford and I went to the farm together.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Capt Crafford give you the order to go to the farm?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, with him to accompany him to the farm.

MR PRINSLOO: And the exclusive purpose was to interrogate Mbizana, is that what you've said?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Had Mbizana already been arrested and was he already being held on the farm at that stage?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, he had been arrested.

MR PRINSLOO: So you arrived there at a later stage, after he'd already been taken there?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, he was already there.

MR PRINSLOO: So you don't know what took place before the time?

MR STRYDOM: No, I don't know what happened there before the time, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: So the interrogation with regard to Mr Prinsloo and the arrangements that he had made before the time, was something that you were not aware of?

MR STRYDOM: No, I would not have known about it.

MR PRINSLOO: And that would be that he would be the person who would exclusively interrogate the person.

MR STRYDOM: It is possible, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you don't know whether Crafford took this decision of his own volution to interrogate the person as you have stated, without the knowledge of Prinsloo?

MR STRYDOM: My experience was that ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker was unclear.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Mr Prinsloo in this regard, I'm not going to repeat it. I just want to know from you, this Mtjali that you have referred to, was this an old man?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, he was an elderly man.

MR PRINSLOO: And he had been a member of staff for quite some time?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, for many years.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Just one question.

Mr Strydom, I look at your application on page 422, the second-last paragraph where you sketch the events, you state - or just before that, I beg your pardon Chairperson, you stated that at approximately 22H00 that evening you returned to the farm where this activist was found hung up in a tree and that he had been assaulted by the black members. Is that your evidence?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then you continue by giving a description of how Sakkie Crafford held his pistol in the air and pulled the trigger and how you hit him with empty bottles.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did any other assault take place during that period in time that you have described here in this second-last paragraph?

MR STRYDOM: Not at this specific point in time, but it appeared to me that someone may have assaulted him in the absence of me and Sakkie. I noticed that his eyes were swollen.

MS VAN DER WALT: But what I want to know from you, because in the previous paragraph you have stated that the black members assaulted him, or that he was assaulted by the black members because they were there, but you state that when you were there and Sakkie Crafford held his pistol and fired shots and you hit him with the empty soda water bottle ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: But Madam Chair, he has already testified that in his evidence-in-chief, that there was a burning of - the burning took place at the same time.

MS VAN DER WALT: Ek sal dit baie waardeer as die advokaat hom nie behulpsaam is nie, want ek wil by hom weet of dit die aanranding ...(tussenbeide) ...(no English interpretation)

MR DU PLESSIS: May I ask whether the witness of Mrs van der Walt is disputing the evidence of this witness, and upon what basis?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, you were still proceeding to explain.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to know if any other assault took place during that period which mentioned in this second-last paragraph. If I may just obtain that answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding his viva voce evidence which was established in his evidence-in-chief, that after this incident that has been referred to, that is at page 422 on the third paragraph, that there was a later assault wherein the private parts of Mr Mbizana were burnt. Do you want to find out if there is any other incident other than that one to which he has already given evidence?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, what is being asked of you is, are you aware of any other incident other than the incident that you've already evidenced to, wherein Mr Mbizana had his private parts burnt by Mr Crafford, was there any other incident wherein he was assaulted during that night, that you are aware of?

MR STRYDOM: There was no other incident with the exception of the gun that was fired near his head by Crafford, the burning with the burning log by Crafford and my share in the assault with the soda water bottle against the head.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say further that there were various wounds on his head.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So if Mr Kruger testifies that there was a burn wound on his head, would you agree?

MR STRYDOM: I would not be able to agree with it, I would not be able to comment on it, but I did not see any burn wound on his forehead.

MS VAN DER WALT: Which wounds did you see?

MR STRYDOM: I saw a wound which had been applied with the soda bottle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was it an open wound?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where was it?

MR STRYDOM: Next to the head above the ear.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was visible?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, it was visible.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Joubert?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, you have already indicated that you are not certain which black members were involved during the interrogation, but you have indicated in your evidence-in-chief that Jerry and Smuts along with other members were present. Are you certain of the fact that Smuts and Jerry were present?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, when I made my statement I was not certain, but after I have read statements during the last week, I have realised that Jerry and Smuts were there.

MR JOUBERT: And are you aware of the duration of their presence and their involvement?

MR STRYDOM: I was only aware, according to my information which I have now, that they were guarding Mandla at the camp.

MR JOUBERT: So if I understand you correctly, they were present on the farm but they did not actively participate in the interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: When you say "No, Chairperson, do you mean that I am not correct, or do you agree with what I have stated?

MR STRYDOM: I agree with what you have stated.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think your question though was answered Mr Joubert, about the duration of their presence. You asked a question if he was aware of how long Smuts and Jerry were there.

MR JOUBERT: No, Madam Chair, no, I just asked whether they merely present and whether they were actively taking part in any questioning of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. My mistake then.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Strydom, in your evidence-in-chief when your legal representative led you, it came to light that you alleged that Mandla was not bound to a water tank.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: The version of Mr Mathebula would be that he was indeed disrobed completely and tied to the water tank.

MR STRYDOM: That is not correct.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula's evidence will also be that the incident which took place on that particular evening during which Mr Mandla was burnt and assaulted, was not a formal interrogation of Mandla, but that it was the result of a serious bout of drinking and a social party after which Mr Mandla was brought out for a bit of fun and pleasure.

MR STRYDOM: That is not correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now Mr Strydom, you say that you went there with Mr Crafford to interrogate Mandla.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Precisely when did you go to the farm for the interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: It was on a Saturday morning.

MR JOUBERT: And this interrogation, what form did it assume?

MR STRYDOM: Crafford led the interrogation, and I have previously stated I took notes.

MR JOUBERT: Was any violence applied during this interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: At this stage no violence had been applied, it wasn't necessary.

MR JOUBERT: Did he give his cooperation possibly?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, it is possible.

MR JOUBERT: And you then left the farm.

MR STRYDOM: Crafford and I left the farm.

MR JOUBERT: And later that evening, at approximately 10 o'clock it would appear, you returned to the farm.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Why did you return at 10 o'clock?

MR STRYDOM: We simply went to buy food and then we returned.

MR JOUBERT: For how long were you away from the farm between the first interrogation and your point of return?

MR STRYDOM: Approximately two hours.

MR JOUBERT: You have stated that Mandla was then tied to the tree, is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, when we returned he was tied to the tree.

MR JOUBERT: When you state in your application that he was hung up, do you mean that he was hanging onto the tree?

MR STRYDOM: He was tied to the tree with his feet on the ground. So I cannot say that he was suspended in the air.

MR JOUBERT: Was he at his full positive at that stage?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, he was.

MR JOUBERT: Was he standing upright against the tree?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, he stood upright against the tree.

MR JOUBERT: So he was not in any kind of slumped position as such?

MR STRYDOM: No.

MR JOUBERT: Now your choice of words in your application, referring to the fact that he was hung up, where does this come from?

MR STRYDOM: As I've stated he stood with his hands which we were attached to the tree above his head.

MR JOUBERT: You have also testified that there was a case in which Crafford burnt him with a log. Where did this log come from?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, there was a fire.

MR JOUBERT: Was it quite a cold evening?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, it was a cold evening.

MR JOUBERT: Did any other persons also assault Mandla with burning logs?

MR STRYDOM: No.

MR JOUBERT: Are you certain of that, or can you not recall?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall.

MR JOUBERT: So the possibility exists that it could have taken place?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, it could have.

MR JOUBERT: If you can just bear with me for a second please, Madam Chair. I have no further questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chair.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: May I interject here before Mr van Heerden for the victims. Subsequent to your questions concerning the possible mistake Mr Strydom may have made in respect of the black members there, I took certain instructions from Mr Matjeni and I believe I should put those on record, because there seems to be some confusion in this regard. Thank you, Chair.

Mr Strydom, I do not want any confusion about this. I think my initial statement may have been wrongly interpreted. It seems that it was common cause that you, or that Mr Matjeni, Mr Jerry Matjeni was present at that stage when you and Mr Crafford had assaulted Mr Mbizana. Is it your version that the black members who were present there at that stage, like Mr Matjeni, were involved in the assault of this Mr Mbizana?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I would not say that they were involved, but that they were present, that's a fact.

MR JANSEN: Yes. When you assaulted the person, but it is about the sentence that he was then already badly assaulted by the black members. From what did you deduce that Mr Mbizana was assaulted before you arrived there?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, as I have said, and I am saying that I suspected that he was assaulted by the black members because I saw that his eyes were swollen like someone had struck him in the face with a first.

MR JANSEN: But you may be entirely wrong with regard to that deduction?

MR STRYDOM: I may be incorrect, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Then I also have to put it to you that Mr Matjeni says that except for the assault at that stage, he was never present on any other occasion where Mr Mbizana was assaulted. His version is also, and I want you to comment on this, that although he cannot specifically recall where Mr Mbizana was when you arrived there, Mr Mbizana was taken by Crafford, van Jaarsveld and yourself and his clothing was removed and he was then tied in that vicinity to something. And once again Mr Matjeni cannot recall the specific detail. Can you comment?

MR STRYDOM: My comment Chairperson, is that I don't have any knowledge of any such an incident where the man was disrobed.

MR JANSEN: Was he burnt with his clothing on?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, when he was burnt by Crafford he was still wearing his clothing, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And where did Crafford burn him on his body?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall exactly, but various places of his body.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him burning him particularly on his private parts?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I did not see that.

MR JANSEN: And did his clothing catch alight?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, his clothing caught fire but not with flames, with smoke.

MR JANSEN: Were the clothing items burning seriously?

MR STRYDOM: Not so bad that it was in flames.

MR JANSEN: But what I mean is, was a large part of the clothes, in other words a large surface of the clothing, was a large surface of the clothing burnt?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall, Chairperson, all that I can recall is that after he was burnt some of the members, I cannot recall whom, threw water on him.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr van Heerden?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Sir, you made a statement that every morning a conference was held in the offices.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How many people usually attended the conference?

MR STRYDOM: The whole unit if they were available.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Does this include Brig Cronje?

MR STRYDOM: No, it was only Unit C.

MR VAN HEERDEN: At such a meeting or conference, was information exchanged?

MR STRYDOM: The day's tasks were discussed, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And you are saying that it was general knowledge that Mandla had been arrested?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And it was then not kept secret?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson. It remained within the unit, it did not go any further, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was instruction given to keep it within the unit?

MR STRYDOM: That was normal practice, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was instruction given?

MR STRYDOM: The instruction existed for many years already, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: In your statement you say that the tents were put up and the purpose for these activities was to interrogate activists and terrorists. This is in the first paragraph of page 422.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was there more than one person that was questioned there?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot specifically recall, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would the camp have specifically been set up for one person?

MR STRYDOM: It may be so, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Didn't you discuss it with Capt Crafford?

MR STRYDOM: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You have also further testified that you only participated in one interrogation session or shift.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: "U getuig ook dat die man pragtig saamgewerk het". ...(no English interpretation)

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And you took notes?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I took notes, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What type of information did he give to you?

MR STRYDOM: At this stage I cannot recall anymore, Chairperson. As I have said, this was more than 16 years back.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But you have a clear recollection that he cooperated.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then you went out to purchase food and you returned and the man was tied to a tree.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you return?

MR STRYDOM: Because we had stayed there.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you then continue with the questioning?

MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford continued, yes Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: May I just ask, what did you buy?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall what types of food we purchased, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did it bother you when you arrived there and you saw that this man was tied to a tree?

MR STRYDOM: No, it did not bother me, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Before your departure there did you give any instructions to the black members?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was it normal practice that they could use their own initiative in your absence?

MR STRYDOM: Capt Crafford at that stage was the Commander, Chairperson, and I assume that he would have given instructions to the other members.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you assume that he gave instructions that they had to assault Mandla?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I cannot say that, I don't know.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You don't know. And when you started once again with the questioning, was this continuing the previous interrogation or did you touch on a new subject?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You cannot recall the content of the interrogation.

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall at all, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why was it decided to hit him with the soda water bottle?

MR STRYDOM: To intimidate him and to break down his moral, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And just before that he indicated his cooperation? Before you went to purchase food it seems that there was no problem with his moral then.

MR STRYDOM: Apparently not, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Does it make sense to you if you look back?

MR STRYDOM: At this stage it does not make sense, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Does it make no sense?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: This trigger that was pulled by Capt Crafford, how far from Mandla's face was the pistol?

MR STRYDOM: It was right against his head with the barrel of the gun passed his head.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So it was right against his head?

MR STRYDOM: No, not against his head. I would say Crafford's hand, the width of Crafford's hand away from his head, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then you struck him afterwards and he became unconscious and he had several injuries to his head. Did he then cooperate?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: In your statement you have said that during this interrogation he had revealed information and several names to you.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And are you saying now that you cannot recall?

MR STRYDOM: I could not recall what information and what names he gave, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But you confirm that he had indeed given names?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did you stay at the farm at times?

MR STRYDOM: As normal practice it may have been eight hours at a time, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And on my statement earlier when I asked you about the food you said you stayed at the farm. Did I understand you correctly?

MR STRYDOM: It was for a day.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then you returned home to rest, or what procedure was followed?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, we went home to rest, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And when you arrived there the Sunday, did you want to continue with the questioning?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I did not want to continue at all, I wanted to see how the man was doing, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You see you say you wanted to see how the man was doing.

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I assume that you were concerned about his condition.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I was concerned about his condition, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And he had been severely assaulted?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: On this point Mr Strydom, in your written application you state the reason for coming back as having been to check the progress of the interrogation and not to check upon his injuries.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, I made a mistake there, but I was also concerned about the man's condition.

CHAIRPERSON: What mistake did you make there?

MR STRYDOM: In my statement I had said that I wanted to see what progress was being made with the interrogation, but in truth I wanted to see how the man was doing, how Mandla was doing, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this known to Capt Crafford, that you would be coming back to check on the state of his injuries?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, it was not known to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

The statement was made earlier that you consumed liquor there that evening, is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: That is not correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that a lie?

MR STRYDOM: That is a lie, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Does that include yourself and Mr Crafford?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that includes myself and Mr Crafford.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The notes that you made of the interrogation, did you give the notes to Capt Crafford when you saw him there that Sunday?

MR STRYDOM: No, I gave it to Capt Crafford the previous evening, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you tell Capt Prinsloo of the information which you had obtained?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I did not have the opportunity.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why do you say that?

MR STRYDOM: Because the Sunday morning when I arrived at the farm, I found Capt Prinsloo there and he seemed very angry to me. He was very angry at myself and Crafford and I felt that there would be an argument and I climbed directly into my car and drove back to my house.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What words were used by Prinsloo to give you an impression that he was angry at you and Mr Crafford?

MR STRYDOM: His words were "Why did you assault this man in this manner?" And according to his facial expression I could see that he was extremely angry and I did not answer him because I was afraid that an argument would ensue and I decided to return, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what argument did you think would ensue, because you had interrogated the man under instructions from your superior, Mr Crafford?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I just felt that Capt Prinsloo was very angry, I saw he was angry and that it would cause a major argument and to prevent that I decided to depart.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Chairperson.

What argument would then have ensued? Because he asked you a question, he asked why did you assault him, why could you not answer him?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I could not answer him. The point is this, I know Capt Prinsloo very well and a fight might have followed.

MR MALAN: What type of fight, physically fighting with each other?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Would he have fought with you?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And physically struck you?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But he was satisfied that you just walked away.

MR STRYDOM: I think it was the best for me, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And he does not call you back?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson.

If you look back at that period of time, was it necessary according to you, to have killed Justice Mbizana?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I cannot comment on that.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why not, why can you not comment?

MR STRYDOM: Because I don't have any knowledge of his killing.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr van Heerden.

Mr Strydom, the Monday, according to your application, you returned the Sunday and the Monday morning you have another conference and Mandla is not discussed again.

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, that Monday Crafford and I received instructions from Brig Cronje to go to Swaziland.

MR MALAN: And you do not ask of anybody anything about Mandla, in spite of the fact that Prinsloo almost beat you up?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You have now listened to the evidence thusfar, in the light of these circumstances as it was sketched, was it necessary to kill Justice Mbizana?

MR DU PLESSIS: But Madam Chair, I object against this. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, is his evidence that he killed Mr Mbizana?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Put your question pointedly, limiting your question to what is within his knowledge.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I will do so, Chairperson. I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, do you wish to re-examine?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, may I through the Committee put a single question to Mr Strydom which I omitted? It will be a single question.

CHAIRPERSON: You will be limited to one question.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: I appreciate it, thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, I put it to you that at conferences the investigations of cases were never discussed, but pieces of information, instructions, feedback and enquiries. What is your comment to this?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, as Mr Prinsloo had already said that at the conference the necessary was discussed, but if somebody was arrested then it was known to the unit.

ADV PRINSLOO: I leave it at that, Madam Chair, I'm indebted to the Committee. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to take that further?

ADV PRINSLOO: What I've put to him, Madam Chair, is that none of the investigation was ever discussed at any of these conferences, it was limited to what I've put to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he has responded to that.

ADV PRINSLOO: He's responded to that.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are satisfied. Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I perhaps just come in here. I don't have clarity about the question and Capt Prinsloo is not going to testify again, but is the - may I enquire from my learned friend if the question is based on the premise that his client alleges that Capt Crafford never knew that Mandla was arrested and it was never told to him that Mandla was arrested, or it was never told to Mr Strydom that Mandla was arrested?

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, what I've put to him is the detail with regard to investigations, it was never discussed at any of these conferences as alluded to by Mr Strydom. That is the gist of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, I don't think we need to make any argument around this.

MR DU PLESSIS: I wanted to place ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I understand the question to be as a result of my questioning of Mr Strydom, when I wanted to find our on which facts they were able to interrogate Mr Mbizana, with Mr Crafford.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Madam Chair, I raised the point because I'm going to argue this point as a further inherent improbability in his client's version, where he only put it and his client didn't testify it. May I be afforded the opportunity to re-examine?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed to re-examine.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam

Chair.

Mr Strydom, you directly acted under the command of Capt Crafford in the interrogation.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you executed his orders.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you accepted that you had to execute his orders.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You had no reason to dispute his instructions.

MR STRYDOM: No reason at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: You have seen in the application that there is mention from the other persons, I think Mr Kruger says in his application that he was burnt on his buttocks. Is it possible?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, it is not possible that he was burnt on his buttocks.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then Mr Strydom, this particular evening when you undertook this interrogation, did you remain there for the evening or did you return at some stage?

MR STRYDOM: I did not remain there for the evening Chairperson, I returned home.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then - Chairperson, I'm going to put something which was conveyed to me by Brig Cronje during lunch time, which I didn't know about and which I didn't put to Capt Prinsloo, and it may be that some cross-examination may flow from that and I thought that I would lead that evidence in Brig Cronje's evidence, but I think it's important that that is put to this witness as well, just to place it on record now.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll allow you Mr du Plessis, though it is not part of re-examination.

MR DU PLESSIS: It is not, but will I be allowed to do that?

CHAIRPERSON: You are applying for special leave to do that, are you not?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Otherwise I will lead that evidence when Brig Cronje testifies, but that's right at the end of the hearing and this may be important pertaining to a specific point that was made.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if we do so we'll have to allow the other legal representatives an opportunity to cross-examine.

MR DU PLESSIS: If they should want to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to raise it now instead of right at the end.

Mr Strydom, Brig Cronje had during the lunch hour told me that he can recall that Capt Prinsloo complained about Capt Crafford, the fact that Capt Crafford had also interrogated and that was the reason why he sent you and Capt Crafford away the Monday, so that no confrontation would ensue. Did you have any knowledge about this?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I did not know of that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Thank you, Madam Chair, I just thought that I would like to place that on record now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo, do you wish to cross-examine on the basis of what has been put to Mr Strydom by Mr du Plessis?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I will leave this for when Mr Cronje gives evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Because it's basically hearsay what's been conveyed.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other legal representative who would like to put a question emanating from what has been put by Mr du Plessis to Mr Strydom?

MR BOTHA: No thank you, Madam Chair.

MR JOUBERT: No thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No, nothing, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Mr Strydom, you say you only participated in the interrogation once, but do you mean that only on the Saturday did you participate in the interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: Only the Saturday, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But you are away from the farm and you returned, the assault part, was this part of the interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, it was part of the interrogation.

MR MALAN: Or was this to burning to intimidate him? Did you ask him questions while he was being assaulted there?

MR STRYDOM: I would put it as such, Chairperson, it was to intimidate him.

MR MALAN: It was not interrogation?

MR STRYDOM: No, at that stage it was not.

MR MALAN: It was a reckless senseless assault without gaining information? Or did you still take notes?

MR STRYDOM: At that stage we still took notes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you sit at a light and take notes?

MR STRYDOM: There was light, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: What type of light?

MR STRYDOM: A gas light.

MR MALAN: Because you see, you deny that alcohol was used, but you went you went and bought food.

MR STRYDOM: We went and bought food, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: To bring it back to the farm to eat it there?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR MALAN: There was no food at the farm?

MR STRYDOM: We didn't have food there, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Very well. And you say in your statement, and I refer to page 422, that the afternoon when you went to Pretoria to buy food it was late in the afternoon.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, late afternoon.

MR MALAN: In your evidence you said late afternoon.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And late afternoon, it's a winter's day, late afternoon is before 6 o'clock because 6 o'clock it gets dark and then it is night.

MR STRYDOM: It was after six.

MR MALAN: How long after six?

MR STRYDOM: It may have been six thirty, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Let's make if six thirty. You drive to Pretoria from the farm which is there at Hammanskraal, that is about 20 minutes drive to Pretoria to buy food, if you wanted to buy food.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You buy food and then you return only 10 o'clock that evening according to your statement.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And according to your scenario it's three and a half hours later.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you drink during that time?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So why did you take three and a half hours to buy food?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, I can now recall that Sakkie Crafford went into the Zeerust flats and he spoke to people there, some of his friends that came from Kimberley and he spent some time there, then I met him there and then we went back to the farm there.

MR MALAN: Where were you while he was there?

MR STRYDOM: I waited in the vehicle, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So why are you saying that you met him there again if you were waiting for him in the car? You did not leave there.

MR STRYDOM: No, I did not.

MR MALAN: How long did he spend with his friends?

MR STRYDOM: It may have been an hour, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did he not consume liquor there?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: How are you so certain that he did not consume liquor?

MR STRYDOM: Because I would have smelt if he consumed liquor.

MR MALAN: Can you recall that?

MR STRYDOM: I can recall, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You cannot recall the other things, but you can recall that he did not drink anything and you can recall that you did not smell any liquor.

MR STRYDOM: I would not say, but if he'd spoken to me I would have known, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And you would have recalled it.

MR STRYDOM: I would have recalled it, yes.

MR MALAN: But the other things you concede that you may be mistaken and everything else is possibly otherwise, but you are entirely certain about this?

MR STRYDOM: I'm certain about this, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Very well. You are entirely certain that Mandla was never undressed.

MR STRYDOM: I am entirely certain about that.

MR MALAN: In your presence?

MR STRYDOM: I'm certain.

MR MALAN: And the persons who say that are lying?

MR STRYDOM: They do not speak the truth, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And no black member ever assaulted him in your presence?

MR STRYDOM: Not in my presence, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So the black persons' assault was an inference you draw, not what you saw?

MR STRYDOM: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And no black member questioned him in your presence.

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, you are excused as a witness.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, are you going to proceed with the next witness?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And that being?

MR DU PLESSIS: That will be Mr Roodt.

CHAIRPERSON: Before he proceeds can we take a short adjournment to afford the translators an opportunity to have some fresh air.

MR DU PLESSIS: Please.

MR MALAN: Mr Roodt, your full names for the record please.

JOHANNES PETRUS ROODT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, the application of Mr Roodt starts at page 456 of bundle 1 and it carries on to page 465.

Mr Roodt, you have studied your application from these pages onwards in its entirely, do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR ROODT: Yes, I do.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the correctness?

MR ROODT: Yes, I do confirm the correctness.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Roodt, your version of these events commences on page 456, right at the very bottom. That would be the typed page 25, where you state that Mandla was detained for approximately one week.

MR ROODT: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you mean on the farm?

MR ROODT: Yes, on the farm.

MR DU PLESSIS: And with the arrest of Mandla in Eerstrus, were you present?

MR ROODT: Yes, I was present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And can you recall that he was taken to the Compol building and after that to the farm?

MR ROODT: Yes, that is correct. We arrested him and he was taken to the Compol building.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were not involved in any interrogation at the Compol building?

MR ROODT: No, I was not involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And were you involved in any interrogation of Mandla at the farm?

MR ROODT: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: What was the purpose behind your presence on the farm?

MR ROODT: It was merely to guard Mandla and the camp.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you see that Mandla was assaulted on the farm during interrogations?

MR ROODT: At a certain stage I was absent because I was busy with other work and when I returned I saw that Mandla had been assaulted.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know whether this was after the occasion upon which he was assaulted by Strydom and Crafford?

MR ROODT: It was after that occasion.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then there is just one final question that I want to pose to you. During this period when you were involved in guarding Mandla, did any idea arise within you, or could you have foreseen that Mandla may die in some or other manner?

MR ROODT: I suspected that if he were to be assaulted any further, he could possibly die.

MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, you will see that we haven't applied for murder in this regard and I will also apply for an amendment in the application for murder and I will then argue it.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be done at an appropriate stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As previously indicated in respect of Mr Strydom.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. As it pleases you. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: I have no examination, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Nothing, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any cross-examination, Mr Jansen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Yes, thank you Chair.

Mr Roodt, you state that at a certain stage you were absent while you were busy with other work, can you recall the period of your absence?

MR ROODT: It was almost two days. It was one day and then the following day I returned in the afternoon.

MR JANSEN: Very well. And up to that stage there had been no assault on Mr Mbizana.

MR ROODT: Before I departed there was no assault.

MR JANSEN: Was there any talk from any person that they wish to assault the person?

MR ROODT: No, not at all.

MR JANSEN: In your statement on page 457, where you state that you and two black members were primarily tasked to guard Mandla, you state specifically that you did not participate in the interrogation of Mandla. Would you agree with me that within that milieux of security where there was also a rank structure, it would have been improbable and unheard of for anyone who was tasked with guarding a subject to interrogate someone without instructions or to initiate any form of interrogation?

MR ROODT: That is correct, the order was to guard him and not to interrogate him.

MR JANSEN: But with the exception of the individuals from the unit whom you knew, you were aware of the Security Police culture that it was improbable that someone who was merely tasked to guard a person would proceed with interrogation, not to speak of assault.

MR ROODT: What do you mean by the culture of the Security Police?

MR JANSEN: Well I am attempting to determine to what extent one could assist with the improbabilities. There was a suggestion which was made by Strydom, that some of the persons who were responsible for guarding him were also responsible for an assault on him.

MR ROODT: I must just mention that Mandla had been detained for approximately two or three days at that place before our arrival.

MR JANSEN: Would that you and the two black members?

MR ROODT: Yes, and W/O Kruger.

MR JANSEN: And you cannot recall now who those two black members were?

MR ROODT: I must just state that at that stage I had been with the Security Police for only a month, I didn't know all the members and I didn't even know all the white members.

MR JANSEN: So you were new there.

MR ROODT: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Roodt, are you aware that Capt Prinsloo interrogated Mandla on that farm?

MR ROODT: Yes, Capt Prinsloo was there two or three times. He interrogated Mandla. He sat to one side with Mandla and made notes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Roodt, this morning I spoke to you with regard to the application of Mr Kruger which appears on page 259, where I

have put it - and I just want to put it for the record, that Mr Kruger states in paragraph 4 that you interrogated, but he will request for this to be amended because he told me this morning that you were one of the persons who was guarding. Is that correct?

MR ROODT: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also heard the statement which I put on behalf of Mr Kruger, that the persons who were guarding were not permitted to interrogate.

MR ROODT: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I just rectify that page, 359. Ms van der Walt said 259.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, do you wish to conduct any re-examination?

MR DU PLESSIS: I beg your pardon. I have no questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roodt, you are excused as a witness.

MR ROODT: Thank you, Madam.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no other witnesses, Madam Chair, my witnesses are finished except for Brig Cronje, but I think he's going to testify last. I think that was the arrangement.

CHAIRPERSON: I was told that there was going to be an arrangement between and amongst counsel as to the order of the applicants to be heard by this Committee, in relation to this incident.

MR DU PLESSIS: I think the agreement was that my two clients will testify, then the two black members will testify and then Brig Cronje will testify last. That is how I understood it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Correct, yes. For a moment I thought seeing that Mr du Plessis is in the swing of things, he may continue. But yes, it was agreed that the two members, either Mr Mathebula or Mr Matjeni would testify now. And we may just as well proceed with Mr Matjeni, he is here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSEN: He will be testifying ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------KOKELA JEREMIAH MATJENI: (sworn states)

MR JANSEN: Madam Chair, before I start leading the evidence, there are some preliminary issues that I must deal with and that I must get on record. The first is, the amnesty application which is before you starts, Madam Chair, on page 71 and continues through to page 92. Madam Chair, that is an application that postdates the cutoff date of the Act and I have with me copies of the original application which was contained in what is titled Form 1. Sorry, I have the original application that was served in December 1996, on the TRC. If I may with your permission hand this up. That would be Annexure or Exhibit B.

ADV MOTATA: B in this one.

MR JANSEN: Now Madam Chair, in this document Exhibit B, you will note in paragraph 9(a)(i), on page 2 thereof, that it is stated - the details relating to the applications for amnesty, it is said -

Madam Chair, just briefly, this applicant together with a number of other applicants who were at that stage part of the Attorney-General's office or in their witness protection programme, fall in the same situation as far as this is concerned. Details were not annexed to their applications.

I have in my possession further, a set of correspondence which I also beg leave to hand up, which just briefly just deals with the correspondence between the attorneys for those witnesses, Messrs Rooth and Wessels and the TRC and more specifically the Amnesty Committee. And I don't wish to go through all the correspondence, save to say that as a summary it was accepted by everybody at that stage, that there will be amplification of the applications at a later stage. Madam Chair, I have discussed with you in chambers and I just wish to place these matters on record and if you are satisfied that we are properly before you, I will then continue with the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, with regard to paragraph 9(a) of Exhibit B, being the application by Mr Matjeni dated the 9th December 1996, am I to assume that one of the incidents that he referred to under paragraph 9(a)(i) was the incident that we now are seized with as the Amnesty Committee?

MR JANSEN: Yes, Madam Chair, and that will in fact be confirmed by Mr Matjeni in evidence now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if that is so, then this matter and his application will be properly before us.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. I assume the bundle of documents we can make C.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Thank you. Madam Chair, we have the problem with the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Your headphones.

EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Matjeni, you have listened to the evidence yesterday and today in respect of the abduction and the killing of Mr Justice Mbizana, also known as MK Mandla.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Is it correct that this was one of the incidents in respect of which you made a statement, a sworn statement to the Attorney-General?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And is it correct that the essence of that statement is repeated in the statement which is before this Committee, starting on page 86?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now Mr Matjeni, this is the first time that you are testifying before the Amnesty Committee, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: I just briefly want to deal with your background. You joined the South African Police in 1964.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: But it was only in 1983 or '84 that you joined the Security Police.

MR MATJENI: That is in 1984, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Before that you were involved in community policing and in criminal investigations.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Where were you resident at that time, between 1964 and 1984?

MR MATJENI: I was staying in Hammanskraal, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you live in the then - did you live on the Bophuthatswana side or on the RSA side of Hammanskraal?

MR MATJENI: In Bophuthatswana, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Of which country were you a citizen?

MR MATJENI: Bophuthatswana, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you at that stage support any political party either in South Africa or in Bophuthatswana?

MR MATJENI: I was not a supporter of any political party, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now in your work as a security policeman, how was it that you regarded the ANC, which was an organisation fighting for the liberation and the emancipation of black people, how was it that you as a black person regarded them as your enemy?

MR MATJENI: It is because of my employ because when they were busy with bombs ...(intervention)

MR JANSEN: If I could assist you. Did you have it against their use of violence and their methods?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now you are fairly conversant in Afrikaans, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now you have read this statement of yours recently again, on pages 86 and page 87, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And do you confirm that what you say there is correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now just to deal with a few issues. Did you at any stage assault Mr Mbizana yourself personally?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, there was no stage where I assaulted Mr Mbizana.

MR JANSEN: Now you accept that at Compol building Mr Mbizana was not placed in an ordinary detention cell and the fact that he was being detained was not entered into any register, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: So you knew that his detention at that stage was strictly speaking against the law.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you regard that type of unlawful detention as a necessary part of your work as a security policeman?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Sorry, Chair, I'm just struggling with my little earphones here.

And the same is true for the detention of Mr Mbizana at the farm outside Pretoria, this farm Klipdrift?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: What were you tasked to do in respect of Mr Mbizana? What was your job?

MR MATJENI: My duty was to guard him and to cook for him and we gave him food.

MR JANSEN: Then on the one evening you state in your statement that he was assaulted by Capt Crafford, W/O Strydom and Capt van Jaarsveld, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson, before he was burnt.

MR JANSEN: Yes. Now you witnessed up to a certain stage that assault, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you also knew that that assault was strictly speaking unlawful?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson, because I left that place, then I went to a certain tent.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but the reason why you went to the tent was because of the cruelty of the assault, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: I didn't like the way he was burnt.

MR JANSEN: Yes. Did you know what the reason was for Capt Crafford and the other two gentlemen for interrogating and assaulting Mr Mbizana?

MR MATJENI: I did not know the reason, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you regard it as any of your business to know why they had to interrogate him?

MR MATJENI: I knew only that he was interrogated, but I didn't know why, because they discussed about many things about him.

MR JANSEN: Yes. What was your rank at the time?

MR MATJENI: I was a Constable.

MR JANSEN: Did you regard it as part of your work not to talk to anybody about these illegal activities?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you know Mr Mbizana in any other capacity other than somebody who was arrested by the police?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, I did not know him, it was for the first time.

MR JANSEN: So is it correct to say that you had nothing personally against Mr Mbizana?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And it's also correct that you did not receive any special remuneration for your involvement in these incidents relating to Mr Mbizana?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, I didn't benefit at all.

MR JANSEN: Now you also - just one thing that must be corrected from your statement in - sorry, Madam Chair, on page 76, the very first paragraph you say -

Now it's correct that that reference to headquarters is wrong, it was not C-Section at headquarters, but C-Section at Northern Transvaal where you were working.

MR MATJENI: That's correct, Chairperson, at Compol building.

MR JANSEN: And from who did you normally receive your orders?

MR MATJENI: Mainly it was from Capt Prinsloo, then after that it was Capt Crafford whom I used to receive instructions from.

MR JANSEN: Yes. And in this incident you received your instructions to guard Mr Mbizana from Mr Prinsloo.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And furthermore, as a Constable tasked with the guarding, it was not your ...(intervention)

MR MATJENI: My duty was to guard him.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but it would not be expected of you or you were certainly not in a position to question Mr Crafford, who was the commanding officer of that unit at that stage.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have - sorry, no, I do have some other questions. I just want to deal with some of what happened on the evening when Mr Mbizana was seriously assaulted. It was said by Mr Strydom that Mbizana was tied to a tree. What is your comment on that evidence?

MR MATJENI: I'm not sure as to whether it was on the tree or it was on the water tank, because there was a tree and then next door to that there was a water tank. I'm not sure as to whether he was tied on the water tank or on the tree.

MR JANSEN: Alright. But my question relates to what Mr Strydom said he saw when he got there. He said when he got there, when he arrived there Mr Mbizana was already tied to a tree or a water tank.

MR MATJENI: That is not correct, Chairperson. We were busy sitting with him when he arrived. We were busy sitting beside the fire.

MR JANSEN: And did Mbizana at that stage have clothes on?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And what happened then, did somebody order him to stand up or ...?

MR MATJENI: That is correct. I don't remember who, but somebody instructed him or maybe all of them, but he was instructed to take off his clothes.

MR JANSEN: And then, what happened to him then?

MR MATJENI: After that he was tied either on the tree or on the water tank.

MR JANSEN: And is that when the assault took place as you describe in your statement?

MR MATJENI: Yes, that is correct, that is when they started to burn him.

MR JANSEN: There was also some suggestions that the white officers or some of them were drunk that evening, did you see them drinking?

MR MATJENI: I did not see them drinking, but they were drunk. They came drunk.

MR JANSEN: Is the impression that you got that they were under the influence?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, I observed that they were under the influence of alcohol.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: I have no questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: No questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Matjeni, is it correct that you cannot say who was responsible for the burning of Mandla with a piece of wood?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember who was responsible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. So you can't dispute it if the evidence on his application is that it was Mr Crafford?

MR MATJENI: I would not dispute that, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now during that episode where Mandla was assaulted, can you at all remember if Mr Strydom hit him with a bottle over the head?

MR MATJENI: I did not see him, because immediately they started burning him, then I left and went to a tent because ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. And as I understood from your evidence, that was part of the interrogation. The assaults were part of the interrogation.

MR MATJENI: I don't know because I have never seen such kinds of interrogation which includes the burning of a person. It was for the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: Refresh my memory, Mr du Plessis, I don't recall him saying that.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm sorry, you don't recall?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't recall that kind of evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Of Mr Strydom?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I thought you meant Mr Matjeni, because ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: No, the questions were asked by Mr Jansen and I specifically noted it that he asked the questions about the assault together with interrogation, he coupled it in the question and Mr Matjeni didn't dispute that it was part of the interrogation and as a result of that I asked the question. So Mr Matjeni was never asked in evidence-in-chief specifically about this, it was just the way Mr Jansen put the question and that's why I asked it because I wanted to clear it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe phrase it in such a way as to elicit whether it is part of his evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Mr Matjeni, when you testified in your evidence-in-chief, you were asked about the assaults during an interrogation, do you agree with that, that the assaults took place during an interrogation?

MR MATJENI: Maybe I don't understand your question, but the assault I observed is when he was burnt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Well in your experience, would people be assaulted by the Security Police ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr du Plessis, sorry to interrupt you, I think the question is a straightforward one.

When they burnt him, were they also asking him questions?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember well.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. So you would agree with me that it is possible that they were asking him questions while they were assaulting him?

MR MATJENI: It's possible because I left them there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Now Mr Matjeni ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr du Plessis.

The reason why you left was after he had been assaulted, and you left because of the cruelty of the assault. That's your evidence, isn't it?

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now whilst you were there, did you see any questions being asked of Mr Mbizana by any of the members who were there?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember but faintly they were wrestling with him or they were confronting him in their communication.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they asking questions? Were they talking to him, of they were merely assaulting without asking anything?

MR MATJENI: What I remember is they were talking to him, they used to tell him that "You terrorist, you terrorist".

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you recall being said on that evening prior to your departure?

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: And would you agree with me that, in the light of your memory, that it is possible also that they could have asked him questions about his involvement as a terrorist?

MR MATJENI: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now Mr Matjeni, you testified that he was told to take off his clothes and he was thereafter tied either to the tree or the water tank. Is that right?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you tell that to your legal representative before today?

MR MATJENI: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also testified that you didn't see them drinking, but that they were drunk. Can you recall that?

MR MATJENI: I recall that, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you tell that to Mr Jansen before today?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. And as far as I can remember Madam Chair, that wasn't put to Mr Strydom. But I don't think it's necessary to ask the witness that question, unless you want me to ask the question. Maybe I should.

Mr Matjeni, can you explain why Mr Jansen didn't put that part of your evidence to Mr Strydom when he cross-examined him?

MR MATJENI: I don't know, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Matjeni, you were under the command of Mr Prinsloo.

MR MATJENI: ...(no English interpretation)

ADV PRINSLOO: And this incident took place a long time ago, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And is it possible that you may be mistaken when you say that he was detained for more than one night at Compol, while Mr Prinsloo says he was only detained for one evening? Would you agree with that?

MR MATJENI: I don't - he stayed more than, between two days to three days. It's more than one day.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Mr Prinsloo, he said it was only one day. What do you say of that? Are you mistaken?

MR MATJENI: I'm not making a mistake, I know that it's more than one day.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are aware that Mr Prinsloo had questioned Mr Mbizana in Compol.

MR MATJENI: Yes, he was questioned at Compol building.

ADV PRINSLOO: And is it also your evidence that Mr Prinsloo never assaulted Mr Mbizana in Compol building?

MR MATJENI: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr van Jaarsveld was tasked with black force activities, or do you not know?

MR MATJENI: May you please repeat the question.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr van Jaarsveld was tasked with black force activities, that was his task at the branch at Compol.

MR MATJENI: Yes, he had his own branch.

ADV PRINSLOO: There where Mr Mbizana was detained at the farm where you guarded him, you have heard Mr Prinsloo's evidence that he had said that he questioned him there at the farm as well on his own. Do you agree with that or not?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are saying in your statement here that Mr Prinsloo was very angry when he discovered that Mr Mbizana had been assaulted in this manner.

MR MATJENI: I'm still stating that he disliked that assault.

ADV PRINSLOO: The same day, I put it to you, that Mr Prinsloo arrived there and discovered that Mr Mbizana had been assaulted, was the same day that the people had withdrawn from there on his instructions. Do you agree with that?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, I was instructed to leave the farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

Sir, my client Mr Kruger, who is behind me, says that you are entirely correct that the person who was assaulted, Mr Mbizana, the morning of the assault he was without clothing and he says that you and Mr Mathebula were present when he released him that morning from the log which he was tied to and he was still naked. Can you recall that?

MR MATJENI: At the time when he was untied I was at the tent, I did not see him.

MS VAN DER WALT: But do you know that at that stage he was still naked, before Mr Kruger had untied him?

MR MATJENI: I don't know who untied him, but I left him there naked.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, as it pleases the Committee.

Sir, do you know who went to put up the tents on the farm?

MR MATJENI: I don't know, Chairperson, it may be Capt Prinsloo.

MR JOUBERT: You can't remember, you can't recall.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And when you returned after being sent home, that's after the assault when you returned to the farm, what happened then?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, we went to the farm the next day.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, and when you got to the farm what transpired?

MR MATJENI: We found Mbizana not present, then we were instructed to de-rig the tent and we returned to the office.

MR JOUBERT: Were you instructed to break the tents down and vacate the property?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now at Compol building there was interrogation of Mandla, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Yes, he was questioned there.

MR JOUBERT: Were you present during the whole time that he was questioned or were there certain instances where you were absent?

MR MATJENI: There are times when I was present and there are times when we were absent because we used to go and buy him food.

MR JOUBERT: So am I then correct to state that there may have been assaults on Mandla at Compol while you were possibly not present?

MR MATJENI: That is possible, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: In your application you state that Mandla was at the farm for approximately one to two weeks. Is it possible that it may only have been one week?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Compol, Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Pardon, Ma'am?

CHAIRPERSON: Compol.

MR JOUBERT: No, at the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: At the farm.

MR MATJENI: That is possible, Chairperson, but I thought it is two weeks.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions to this witness, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, Madam Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I be afforded the opportunity to ask a question flowing from a statement that was put to this witness by Ms van der Walt? May I just say this. It may become important because the statement was made that Mr Kruger will testify that he saw that he was without clothes and that Matjeni and Mathebula were there when he was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Untied.

MR DU PLESSIS: ... untied, thank you for the word, the next morning. Now that evidence was never put to my client, Mr Strydom and I just want to clear a few things up in respect of that from this witness please.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't his evidence that he wasn't there when he was untied? Would your questioning ...(indistinct)

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, my questioning would relate to what he says in his application, where he says -

And what I want to know is if he was brought in the night or the next morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may put the question.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: May it please you.

Mr Matjeni, can you remember you testified in your application that Mandla was brought back to the tent after these assaults, after you had left and you hadn't seen the assaults again he was brought back to the tent. Was that the next morning or was that still that same night?

MR MATJENI: That is the same night, Chairperson, because after they burnt him they left.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. And when he was brought back to the tent, did he have clothes on or was he naked?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Right. Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just answer to the comment that I did not put it to Strydom? I could not because this emanated from cross-examination from Mr Jansen that it seemed that the person was naked and without clothes and I took instructions and that is why I did not put it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for explaining that to us, Ms van der Walt. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to the witness?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, do you wish to re-examine?

MR JANSEN: No re-examination, thank you Chair.

MR MALAN: Mr Matjeni, you say in your statement that the tents were set up on the farm Klipdrift of Mr Pretorius, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is Pretorius' farm.

MR MALAN: Was it the first time you stayed at the farm or were there other times?

MR MATJENI: I think there was an instance where we were at that farm. If I remember well.

MR MALAN: How do you know Mr Pretorius, how do you know what his name is?

MR MATJENI: I knew that it was Mr Pretorius' farm, but I don't know how it came about to know that it's Mr Pretorius.

MR MALAN: Did you know Mr Pretorius himself or did you only know it was his farm?

MR MATJENI: I know him personally.

MR MALAN: Was he a farmer?

MR MATJENI: Yes, he had a livestock and a certain firm in Babaleki, which is called Pretorius, it was his firm.

MR MALAN: He was not an ex-policeman?

MR MATJENI: I don't know, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Matjeni, you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next applicant to be heard in relation to this incident?

MR DU PLESSIS: I think that's Mr Mathebula and Cronje, those are the two witnesses that are left, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, are you in a position to commence with Mr Mathebula's application? I'm asking this bearing in mind that you were instructed quite late and when you saw us in chambers you indicated that you might require more time to consult before being in a position to lead evidence viva voce.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. That is indeed the position, but I have obtained the necessary instructions and I think we can proceed at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula will testify in Tswana.

ADV MOTATA: Your full names?

SMUTS PHILEMON MATHEBULA: (sworn states)

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, just an issue which I have not addressed, it's the position as set out by my learned friend, Mr Jansen. I understand that Mr Mathebula has testified before the Committee prior to this and I have not raised the issue pertaining to his application which was also dated, if I may refer you to page ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Page 122.

MR JOUBERT: ... 122 and further. That is similar to the matter as with Mr Matjeni and then a further application was then amplified. These arrangements were made and at that stage Mr Mathebula was also represented by the firm Rooth and Wessels. I am not aware, but I do think that the correspondence which was handed up also refers to Mr Mathebula's situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is our understanding. We are sitting with two applications, one at page 122 and the other one, it's signed - I think it's on page 116. The one on page 116 was signed on the 9th of December '96 and this one was a further amplification.

MR JOUBERT: That is the amplification indeed. I just want to submit that I respectfully am of the opinion that the application is properly before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: I will not address you further in detail, my learned friend has covered all the aspects in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula, you have testified before the Committee prior to this hearing, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: So the full particulars pertaining to your history and your experience and involvement with the South African Police has been dealt with.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Okay. For expediency purposes I will not cover those aspects again at this stage and just concentrate on the issue at hand.

Mr Matjeni, your application in this matter is contained on page 117 to 141 of bundle 1 and the incident specifically that is being heard is contained on pages 135 to 141. Do you confirm the content of your application in this regard?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now you have heard the evidence that has been led so far. I would like to start with the incident at Compol.

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I heard the evidence.

MR JOUBERT: At Compol there was a measure of interrogation, were you involved in this interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And was there any assaults that took place during this interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: What did the assault consist of?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well we were clapping him, we were slapping, about 15 to 20 minutes.

MR JOUBERT: It wasn't a serious assault, it was just a light assault during the questioning of Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it was not a serious assault.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall who was present ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Joubert.

Were you slapping and clapping him for a period of 10 continuous minutes?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember who put a tube on the head and then he squeezed it and then left him for about seconds, then after that he was slapped for about 15 to 20 minutes. It was not continuous.

MR JOUBERT: So apart from the slaps a tube was also placed around his head, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Was there any other form of assault that took place in your presence?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Is it true that you cannot recall exactly who was present during this incident of the assault on Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Capt Prinsloo was present.

MR JOUBERT: In your application you state on page 135 thereof, paragraph 3 at the bottom -

Am I correct in stating that you are not sure whether Jerry was there at that stage at all?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that he was not present.

MR JOUBERT: What was the movements of the members of the Security Branch, would they be moving in and out during this interrogation, or what was the exact position?

MR MATHEBULA: There were those who were entering and those who were going out, because it was at W/O Dos Santos' office.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall what period of time Mandla was kept at Compol?

MR MATHEBULA: If I'm not mistaken it's three days.

MR JOUBERT: And thereafter he was moved to the farm, Klipdrift, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: When you left for the farm Klipdrift, did you find a camp which had already been erected, or were you sent to the farm prior to taking Mandla to the farm?

MV MATHEBULA: If I remember well we were sent there before to erect the tent, then from there we returned to our office in Compol.

MR JOUBERT: Your instructions at the farm, was that merely to attend to the guarding of Mandla for the period that he was detained there?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: At the farm did you participate in any assaults on Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you participate in any interrogation of Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not take part.

MR JOUBERT: Now you have heard the evidence of Mr Matjeni, that there was an incident when Mr Mandla was severely assaulted and burnt, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall where Mr Mandla was - well apparently he was tied to either a tree or some other object. Can you recall to what he was tied?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember it was at the water tank which was provided by the farmer. We made fire then he was tied on the water tank.

MR JOUBERT: And then the assault, there was an assault that took place upon him there, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: What did you do at that stage, did you stay at the fire or did you leave for the tent or what were your actions?

MR MATHEBULA: I stayed beside the fire with Mr Mtjali and then we were observing the incident of assault.

MR JOUBERT: At that stage your rank was that of Constable, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And the people who were participating in the assault were senior officers or much senior to you in rank, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Were you in a position to question them at all?

MR MATHEBULA: Not at all, Chairperson, not at the Security Branch.

MR JOUBERT: Now the evidence was, or the statement was made that after this assault Mr Mandla was brought back to the tent, can you recall when he was brought back to the tent?

MR MATHEBULA: After he was burnt and after he was assaulted I remember who untied him, then he was taken to the tent because he was sleeping together with me and Mr Mtjali in the same tent.

MR JOUBERT: Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Who untied him?

MR MATHEBULA: I stated that I don't remember who untied him, it might be me or Jerry or one of them. I don't remember.

MR JOUBERT: Or somebody else?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Then after the assault the following day Capt Prinsloo arrived, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And he was very upset with what had happened and on that same day he sent all the members away, some on certain missions and some were sent home, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson, he was angry.

MR JOUBERT: You left after being instructed to do so and then only returned the following morning, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And when you arrived back at the farm on that following morning, did you find Mandla there?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Were you informed about what had happened to him? Was it mentioned or anything to this effect?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Capt Prinsloo informed us that -

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula, during this whole process that you were now involved with Mandla, with his detention etc., were you under the orders of Capt Prinsloo?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And am I correct in saying that you acted in accordance with those orders and that you were under the impression that that was in the performance of your duties with the Police Force at that stage?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you know Mandla apart from this incident at all?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not know him.

MR JOUBERT: Did you have any personal grudges against Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And did you receive any gain for the actions or the part that you took in the possible assault and illegal detention of Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not benefit at all.

MR JOUBERT: Now the detention of Mandla, was that the way that the Security Police operated at that stage, to keep him away or to prevent his arrest becoming known to the public? In other words was it standard practice to arrest a person and keep him detained in this manner?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, according to me he could have been detained, then he could have been taken to the cells or to the police stations in Pretoria.

MR JOUBERT: Just bear with me for a second please, Madam Chair.

Am I correct then in saying furthermore that you are now applying for amnesty pertaining to the assault which took place at Compol on Mr Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: As well as to a possible charge of abduction? Sorry, Madam Chair, a charge of abduction.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions at this stage, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: Nothing, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Nothing, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Mathebula, in how many interrogations were you involved during your time at the Security Police? Were you used for interrogations? Let me ask the question that way.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Did you hear the question, Mr Mathebula?

MR MATHEBULA: No, I did not, Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: We are ready, you can continue.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

Were you frequently utilised in interrogations? - frequently.

MR MATHEBULA: I would not say always, but there were occasions where Capt Prinsloo used me during interrogations.

MR DU PLESSIS: And were you involved in any other interrogations which were done unlawfully, apart from this one, where people were assaulted?

MR MATHEBULA: There is one which is pending to be heard by the Amnesty Committee.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you know at that time of all the incidents and interrogations that people like Col Roelf Venter, W/O van Vuuren, Capt Hechter and people like that were involved in? Did you know anything about that?

MR MATHEBULA: I'd be telling a lie if I may mention anything in regard to Venter.

MR DU PLESSIS: They testified frequently before the Truth Commission about various assaults and about the fact that was standard practice of the Security Police to exercise force during interrogations and that was the standard practice. Now do you still say that, maintain your evidence and your position that it wasn't standard practice to assault people during interrogations?

MR MATHEBULA: That is why I'm saying those people who were in Section B, because I was not part of Section B, I did not know what they were doing and I did not know as to whether it was standard practice for them or not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you see you're not in a position to really say what the standard practice of the Security Police was pertaining to interrogations, are you?

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to detention, Mr du Plessis. That's his evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: I understood to relate to assaults, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It's precisely with regard to detention and nothing more.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright, then I'll leave it there.

Mr Mathebula, do you still stand by your written version of your application, do you still say this is correct?

MR MATHEBULA: I would say it correct, even if there might be some other issues which I forgot, but generally I would say it's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. And you were there at the farm the whole time, from the beginning to the end when Mandla was there, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also then would know who came to interrogate Mandla during that period, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And who was that, who came to interrogate him?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Capt Prinsloo came, we took him from the tent, then he had a discussion with him, I think for an hour or less.

MR DU PLESSIS: When was this now, right when he was taken to the farm, right at the beginning?

MR MATHEBULA: I'm talking about what happened at the farm. Capt Prinsloo used to come at the farm, he would take Mr Prinsloo from the tent, then he would have a discussion with him and leave.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you remember who the first person was who interrogated him at the farm?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well it's Capt Prinsloo.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you testified about the one incident about Mr Crafford and Mr Strydom and where they burnt him with a piece of wood. Can you remember if Crafford of Strydom or anybody else, apart from that incident, ever interrogated Mandla? - apart from Prinsloo now.

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember them coming to interrogate him except on that particular day when he was burnt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. So that was the only time when you saw Crafford and Strydom there where they had anything to do with Mandla, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. You see why I'm asking you this is on page 137 of your application you say, actually on 136 you say -

And then you say -

And then you carry on with that paragraph and then in paragraph 8 you say -

And then you tell us about the incident where he was burnt with the piece of wood. Now why I'm putting this to you is when I read your application, it seems that you say Capt Crafford was involved and Mr Strydom was involved in more than one occasion at the farm to interrogate him. Can you comment on that?

MR MATHEBULA: The person I remember coming to the farm to interrogate Mandla is Capt Prinsloo, I don't remember others interrogating him.

MR DU PLESSIS: The only other time that you remember an interrogation where Prinsloo wasn't, where somebody else was involved was the time when they burnt him with the piece of wood, is that correct

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct yes, that is when he was burnt with ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: So what you say in your application here, paragraph 7, that Capt Crafford came on the first morning when he was there, together with Strydom and van Jaarsveld and Putter and that he was - and Prinsloo, and he was interrogated at that time, that that is then not correct? Should it be only Prinsloo?

MR MATHEBULA: What I'm saying is that Capt Prinsloo was the one who was interpreting, or was interrogating. If I stated that, that means that Capt Prinsloo is the one who is interrogating. He was that kind of a person who doesn't want to be crowded when he is interrogating a person.

MR DU PLESSIS: So it would be incorrect to read that paragraph as that all those people were involved in the interrogation on that first morning?

MR MATHEBULA: I only remember about Capt Prinsloo. He may have come with them, but I don't remember them interrogating him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now Mr Mathebula, Mr van Jaarsveld said in an affidavit that he wasn't involved in any interrogation, I think he also says that he wasn't at the farm. I'm not hundred percent sure. But he wasn't involved in the interrogation, is that correct? Captain van Jaarsveld, he wasn't involved in the interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: That is why I'm saying the person who interrogated Mandla is Capt Prinsloo. Even the time when he was burnt it was because they were drunk.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who was drunk?

MR MATHEBULA: Capt Crafford, Capt van Jaarsveld and Strydom, they were drunk. They were drunk.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Did you see them drinking?

MR MATHEBULA: Oom Struis had a J&B bottle.

CHAIRPERSON: By Oom Struis do you mean Mr Strydom?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Strydom, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, we used to call him Oom Struis.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say Oom Struis ...(indistinct - no microphone)

When you say you are certain that Oom Struis was drunk, really drunk, I think that's the word you used in Sotho, what do you mean? How could you establish that he was very drunk?

MR MATHEBULA: Because of my observation because I was sitting beside the fire. All those things they did to Mandla were not necessary, you could see that it is because of the influence of alcohol.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you observe from their conduct, particularly Oom Struis' conduct? I mean did you hear him speaking with a slurred speech, could he not walk properly? What created an impression in your mind that he was very drunk, other than what they did to Mr Mbizana?

MR MATHEBULA: According to my observations they were not able to move properly. They had a J&B Whisky. At the very time when they were assaulting him they were drinking at the same time.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now did you see them drinking?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. And did they speak to Mandla?

MR MATHEBULA: Oom Struis used to say "You terrorist, you terrorist". They were talking things like that to him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did they ask him questions?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, they were asking him questions, but mainly they used to say "You terrorist, you terrorist".

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm asking were they asking him questions and you say yes.

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, they were asking questions, though I don't remember which questions.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. So you can't dispute it if Mr Strydom's evidence is that that was an interrogation and that they were asking him questions?

MR MATHEBULA: I was the first time seeing that kind of an interrogation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now do you know what answers Mandla gave?

MR MATHEBULA: He was not able to respond because he was crying. You cannot cry if you are burnt, so he was crying all the time. (sic)

MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying that he didn't respond at all to the questions?

MR MATHEBULA: He was not able to answer or respond to their questions. There's no way you can answer questions if you are burnt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because there is evidence of Mr Strydom that he did answer questions and that he did give information. Are you saying he's lying?

MR MATHEBULA: I would say he's lying because he was burnt on his testis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where was he burnt?

ADV MOTATA: May I interpose, Mr ... I think we should put it in perspective. That he said they interrogated him whilst he was taking notes and they left to buy food and when they burnt him I don't think they interrogated him. I don't recall that kind of evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: He did, he did.

ADV MOTATA: He did?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV MOTATA: Oh, thank you. Sorry about that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you.

Yes, about the testicles, I'm very interested. This is the first time I hear about this, just tell us a bit more. Is there more evidence that you want to give us that you haven't told us before, that you didn't put in your application? Please, I'm interested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr du Plessis, I mean he has mentioned in his affidavit, that's page 137, paragraph 8, that they burnt this man's private parts. Did you want him to specify that they burnt one testicle ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: ... they burnt the penis. Isn't that sufficient?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I'm sorry, I missed that, I missed that. I will withdraw that question.

Now Mr Mathebula, the evidence of Mr Strydom and Mr Crafford, if you read the applications, their evidence is that Mr Crafford burnt him with the piece of wood. Do you dispute that?

MR MATHEBULA: The three of them burnt Mr Mandla. The person who left there is Jerry, because he didn't like what was happening, but I was there observing the whole scene.

MR DU PLESSIS: Alright. Now who do you say was burning him? Come again.

MR MATHEBULA: Oom Struis, Capt Crafford, Capt van Jaarsveld.

MR DU PLESSIS: And van Jaarsveld.

MR MATHEBULA: Ja.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you remember that clearly now?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, I remember that well, because it was for the first time seeing a person treated that way.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because on page 137 of your application, right at the bottom of the page, you don't mention Capt van Jaarsveld and Mr Crafford, there you were apparently not certain because you said "ander persone".

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR DU PLESSIS: The bottom part, page 137.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) he mentions them, second line, paragraph eight.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but he doesn't say there that these people were involved in the burning, in the physical burning. Then he says later on -

There he says "ander persone", but he doesn't name them specifically and that's the only reason why I'm asking the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Mathebula, do you see there you don't say there Mr Crafford or Mr van Jaarsveld, you just say "ander persone". Have you become more clear now in your mind or why is it that when you did this application you couldn't remember that?

MR MATHEBULA: As I've already mentioned their names, the person who was compiling this statement was the person who made a mistake, because I mentioned them. The person who wrote or compiled this statement is the one who made a mistake.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Now you wouldn't know why Mr Crafford would have been interested in interrogating this man, would you? Why he would have had an interest.

MR MATHEBULA: I told you that that was not interrogation.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Mathebula, we can talk about that. You also said to me that you saw them asking questions and you don't know what questions they asked. Or do you want to change that evidence?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't want to change my evidence, I've already stated that according to me it was for the first time seeing that kind of interrogation. I don't believe that there is any other person who can interrogate a person in that way. They were doing that because of the influence of alcohol.

MR DU PLESSIS: You don't like Mr Strydom.

MR MATHEBULA: I have no problem with Mr Strydom. Even some weeks back I was with him at his place.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm asking why and how can you dispute that that was an interrogation, and an interrogation means asking of questions, when you testified that questions were asked to this person during this period and you don't know what questions were asked.

MR MALAN: Mr du Plessis, I think that that was conceded, that questions were asked. The witness on several occasions said he wouldn't describe that as an interrogation.

MR DU PLESSIS: I will leave it there.

What I want to put to you is something that I have looked at again, which I perhaps should have asked Mr Strydom and the previous witnesses. Mr Crafford said on page 496 of his application, the second last paragraph, he said -

You don't know anything about that do you?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember him being asked that question or making that kind of statements.

MR DU PLESSIS: But the point I'm trying to make is - what I'm putting to you, Mr Mathebula, I'm putting to you that that clearly was the interest of Mr Crafford in the interrogation of this person.

MR MATHEBULA: I don't believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't know Mr Mathebula.

MR MATHEBULA: I would not know.

MR MALAN: May I just be certain, Mr du Plessis. Is it your suggestion that the paragraph that you have read out refers to the information which was obtained when the log was used to burn the subject? That session of interrogation?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, as I have read it, it would appear to me that the information was obtained previously. The only point that I wish to make, and I will argue about this later, because Mr Crafford isn't present, the point is that his interest with Mandla had to do with Ramango apparently, and the facts surrounding Ramango, and for that reason he had a motive to interrogate him.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't it stand out, Mr du Plessis, when you read page 496 until 197, that the information that was obtained with regard to Ernest Ramango must have been obtained prior to the burning with a log incident?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, it looks like it.

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear, it doesn't look like to me. He says he then again questioned him.

MR DU PLESSIS: He says -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the only point - we can't ask Capt Crafford obviously, so we'll have to argue on the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And it's also unfair to ask Mr Mathebula this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you. Chairperson, if you'll just bear with me please.

Now Mr Mathebula, did you tell your current legal representative everything about this matter when you consulted with him?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see when he cross-examined Mr Strydom he did not mention to Mr Strydom that questions were asked, in fact he insinuated during the cross-examination of Mr Strydom, that this whole incident of the burning with the piece of wood was simply just for the fun of it. Now I find it strange that he would put that in cross-examination without also putting the fact that questions were asked in the same vein. Do you have any explanation for that?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't follow your question, Sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see what concerns me is your legal representative did not put your whole version pertaining to that incident, he put that that incident was simply for the fun of it, and what concerns me about that is two things. The one thing is he did not put that questions were asked during that incident and also that specific fact that he put that it was only for the fun of it, does not appear in your application. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MATHEBULA: I have no comment, maybe my legal counsel will comment on that.

MR DU PLESSIS: No you see, what I will argue is that that's a recent fabrication and that for some reason or another you are trying to make Mr Strydom's application for amnesty as difficult as possible. That's what I'm going to argue.

MR MATHEBULA: All these people who are here and others, all of us are here to apply for amnesty. We did those things and it's history now. It's not because we had any grudge or something, because all of us are here to tell the truth and to apply for amnesty.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Mathebula. I have no further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Jansen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Mathebula, I see that you were - I'm referring to page 118 of your application, you joined the Police Force in 1978 and from 1980 you were at Ovamboland. I assume that since 1980 you had - your work was mainly with the Security Branch of the South African Police.

MR MATHEBULA: I went to the Security Branch in 1984.

MR JANSEN: No, I accept that. But the people who were - the South African Police that were stationed in Ovamboland were mainly policemen from the Security Branch, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Do you mean mainly the Security Branch? Because they would take each and every person. If only you had a course from Maleeuskop(?) you go to the borders. I don't understand your question as to whether you mean particularly Security Branch or not.

MR JANSEN: Let me put it this way. The training that you received at Maleeuskop, that related to security training. It related to National Security, it was not ordinary training of crime investigation or policing.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it was for National Security.

MR JANSEN: Now by 1987 I assume that you must have been present at a number of interrogations of persons who had been detained, whether lawfully or unlawfully.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: And would it be correct to say that you were probably involved in so many of them that you probably wouldn't be able to tell this Committee how many of them, or how many of such interrogations you were present at or involved in?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it's impossible to state how many.

MR JANSEN: Now I just formally want to state to you, I mean you've heard the evidence that Mr Matjeni denies being involved in any assault at the Compol building. Do you wish to make any comment on that?

MR MATHEBULA: It may be true that he was not present.

MR JANSEN: And you will exceed that to the extent that your evidence and that of Mr Matjeni differs on minor detail or on individuals present at various stages of this incident, that it could be a mistake that either you or Mr Matjeni is making because of the lapse of time.

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible, Chairperson, because I'm not able to state who was where and when.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Mathebula, briefly, according to your evidence if I understand your evidence correctly, this assault in Compol was very brief.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are saying if you recall correctly Capt Prinsloo was present, so it seems that you are not sure if he was present. Is that correct, Mr Mathebula?

MR MATHEBULA: As I stated in my statement that - as I've stated already that if I remember well, Capt Prinsloo was present.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Mathebula, is it possible that you are mistaken, that he was not present during such an assault? You have heard his evidence, he says in his presence there was no assault, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Mainly Capt Prinsloo would not allow anyone to do anything without his authorisation. You would not do anything to any detainee without his authorisation.

ADV PRINSLOO: The question that I asked you, Mr Mathebula, is that Capt Prinsloo said in his evidence that he was not present at Compol, in his presence, where Mandla was assaulted. He did not see any assault. Would you differ from that?

MR MATHEBULA: Maybe I am mistaken, but if I remember well he was present.

ADV PRINSLOO: And according to Capt Prinsloo, Mr Dos Santos did not assist him in the interrogation of Mandla, but he was tasked with the other group, Obet Masina and his group.

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Dos Santos was present there, because where we were it was just in front of his office.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Prinsloo.

Your evidence-in-chief or during cross-examination by Mr du Plessis, elicited that the interrogation of Mandla at Compol took place in Mr Dos Santos' office. Now you are saying it took place just in front of his office. Was it inside his office or just outside the office?

MR MATHEBULA: It was in front of Dos Santos' office. There were some steps, that is where - it was just in front of Dos Santos' office, not inside.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: May I proceed, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Mathebula, you have also heard the evidence of Capt Prinsloo, the interrogation which he undertook took place in his office. Can you recall that?

MR MATHEBULA: Maybe at the night when Mr Mbizana was brought, that's when he interrogated him in his office. I cannot testify to that.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Mathebula, just on that point. According to Capt Prinsloo, Mandla was only kept at Compol for one evening and thereafter he was moved the morning to the farm, to which you have also referred in your evidence. Are you possibly confused about this?

MR MATHEBULA: No, I'm not confusing facts, I did not say Mandla was there for a night, I stated that he stayed there for two or three nights. I don't remember as to whether what day of the week was it. We took him to wash at the fourth floor where blacks used to wash, where Capt Prinsloo stated that it is for the first time he washed a terrorist.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard Capt Prinsloo's evidence and Capt Prinsloo denies that he was involved in any of this. Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

MR MATHEBULA: He may have forgotten because this thing happened a long time ago. He's a normal person like any other person.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms van der Walt.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

Mr Mathebula, I would just like to place on record, I have discussed it with Mr Steenkamp before this application, and that is that I actually also represent Mr Dos Santos, him being an implicated person. He is also my client. I have informed Mr Steenkamp of this.

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I was under the impression Adv Prinsloo is appearing for Mr Dos Santos, because I discussed the Dos Santos matter with him yesterday, but I may be mistaken. I'm sure Mrs van der Walt was aware of the fact that Mr Dos Santos was notified of this hearing as an implicated party. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, that is correct, I just stood in for Louisa van der Walt yesterday in her absence as far as Dos Santos is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: So who will be appearing for Mr Dos Santos, as an implicated person? - to the extent of his implication.

MS VAN DER WALT: I do, thank you.

Mr Mathebula, I would just like to put to you that Mr Dos Santos - you mention, but in your evidence-in-chief you said you may be mistaken that he was present. I would just like to put to you that in this instance he was not present. Can you dispute that?

MR MATHEBULA: I may not dispute that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also heard what I have said to Mr Matjeni, that Mr Kruger will testify that the morning after the assault on the deceased, early that morning he untied Mandla and he was still unclothed. Can you comment?

MR MATHEBULA: The way I remember, Mandla was not fastened there the whole night, he was untied at some stage and was taken back into the tent. That's what I remember.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: None.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to re-examine, Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: No re-examination, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mathebula, you are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you think it will be an appropriate time to lead Mr Kruger's evidence-in-chief, or maybe an appropriate time to adjourn until tomorrow morning?